9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced by the W-2 furnished by the assessee for the FY 2008-09? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not adopting the grossing up concept in respect of the assessee's Indian taxes borne by the employer in reference to Section 17 (2) (iv) r/w Section 192 (1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as hereunder :- The respondent/assessee is an individual residing and working in India, but receiving salary in US Dollars in USA. The assessee had offered the net salary of Rs. 1,22,94,450/- received, after deducting the federal taxes, medical insurance, life insurance, etc., in his return for the assessing year 2009-2010 filed on 27.7.09. The company/em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alary on which an amount of Indian Rs. 40,12,145/- is withdrawn being hypothetical tax payable in US. In lieu for the amount withdrawn as hypothetical tax, the employer company had paid the tax liability of the assessee in India for Rs. 31,57,915/-. Thus, the net amount withdrawn by the assessee company from the salary of the assessee is Rs. 8,55,230/- (Rs.40,13,145 (-) Rs. 31,57,915), thereby the assessee has factually had received salary of Rs. 1,02,19,791/- (Rs.1,10,75,021 Rs.8,55,230). (Emphasis supplied)." 4. The Tribunal also took into consideration the statement of analysis of hypothetical tax as submitted by the representative of the assessee and held in para-8 of its order that there is a difference in tax to the tune of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and perused the materials available on record. 7. Even at the outset, without any contradiction, it could be stated that the plea of the appellant/Revenue that there is no specific indication as to what is the gross total income of the assessee and, therefore, there is no clarity in the order of the Tribunal, deserves to be rejected. A cursory look at the order of the Tribunal reveals that there is no such confusion in the order of the Tribunal, as portrayed by the learned standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue. The Tribunal, in para-7 of its order, which has been extracted above, has clearly stated that consequent to the withdrawal of hypothetical tax payable in US, certain amount has been paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
