TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support from the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has also accepted the claim of the assessee in the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01. In the said factual backdrop and since there is no change in the facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and, therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3870/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - Shri J. S. Reddy, Accountant Member And Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Manoj K. Chopra, Senior DR ORDER Per A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member This appeal, at the instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting and analyzing its family planning programme. Section 8.3 of the said agreement provides that the goods, services, training and contractor personnel financed by the grant or provided by A.I.D/Washington will be exempt from any taxation, duties 0] fees imposed under laws in effect in the territory of India. The specific project under the agreement in connection of which the assessee appears to have rendered services is the Innovation in Family Planning Services (IFPS). The IFPS project was originally designed in 1992 to assist the Indian government in revitalizing family planning services using the state of UP as the primary site and testing ground for program innovations. An independent society, the State Innovation in Family Planning S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ateral agency. Further, the relevant agreement categorically provides exemption not only to goods, services, training but also to the, contractor personnel. If the prime contractor has subcontracted part of the work to a subcontractor, the personnel of such subcontractor, who is deployed on the project being implemented in terms of the intergovernmental agreement, would also qualify for the exemption. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the factor which weighs most in favour of the assessee, are the orders issued by the CIT (A) dated 07.05.2002 and of the Honorable ITAT, Delhi dated 28. 10. 2005 in the asses sees own case for the AY.1999-2000 2000-01. The facts for the year are similar to the year under consideration. It is true tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alify for exemption u/s 10 (8) of the Act. The ld. DR pointed out that employer of the assessee Engender Health could not confirm that the remuneration of the assessee is from US Government. Therefore, the AO had rightly held that the assessee was not entitled for the exemption u/s 10(8) of the Act and made the addition which has been deleted by the CIT (A) erroneously, so it had to be set right and the order of the CIT (A) may be set aside and order of the AO may be restored. 6. Ld. AR, at the outset itself, pointed out that the ITAT had decided the issue in favour of the assessee for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01 and took our attention to pages 11 to 14 of the paper book. He further submitted that this fact was brought to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of which such individual is required to pay any income or social security tax to the Government of that foreign State; A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of law is that the conditions stipulated for claiming the exemption are that if an assessee is assigned to duties in India in connection with any cooperative technical assistance programmes and projects which is in accordance with the agreement entered into by the Central Government and a foreign State and in the said agreement between the two countries, the terms for exemption are provided as per the requirement of this section i.e. section 10 (8) of the Act. On the perusal of the records, we find that the assessee is employed by Engender Health previously known as AVSC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he agreement specifically exempts income of the personnel working with the USAID Project as required by the section 10(8) of the Act and the assessee being paid indirectly by the United States Agency for International Development satisfies the requirement of law to claim exemption u/s 10 (8) of the Act. Moreover, we also get support from the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has also accepted the claim of the assessee in the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01. In the said factual backdrop and since there is no change in the facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and, therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
