TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee were removed - 710,711,713,715,717,719,873,1033-39 & 1102 of 06 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2006 - JUDGMENT 1 It appears that the respond a joint venture Indian company formed by the collaboration between Eli Lilly, Netherlands B.V. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, engaged the services of four expatriates in India. These four employees seconded by Eli Lilly, Netherlands B.V. were receivin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he argument is that an assumption cannot be drawn that the respondent-company was unaware of the salaries received by its four executives abroad. Hence, she submits, the respondent-company was duty-bound to deduct TDS not only in respect of the salaries payable by it to the said executives, but also in respect of salaries receivable by these executives from the collaborating company, viz., Eli Lil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fected had been credited in favour of the foreign party could not be extrapolated into that case. 4 In other words, so far as the present case is concerned while some salary may have accrued to these four employees outside India, the vital incidence of the payment of the salaries to them abroad had not actually been made by the respondent-company. The question raised on behalf of the Revenue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended by learned counsel for the Revenue that even mindful of the decision in CIT v. Prem Nath Motors P. Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 705 (Delhi), since the four employees have paid income-tax on their foreign incomes also whilst tax cannot be recovered twice, i.e., from the individual as well as the company, nevertheless interest could be recoverable from the respondent-company. We are unable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
