TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for short), in connection with the income-tax assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee is a company. The, company secured the services of one Mr. Larner with the approval of the Central Government as a foreign technician subject to the provisions contained in section 10(6)(vii-a) of the Act. The Central Government conveyed its approval to the contract of Mr. Larner's service in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tax on the salary paid to Mr. Larner in excess of the sum of Rs. 4,000 per month. There is no dispute that the assessee-company paid the required tax on the sum paid in excess of the amount exempt under section 10(6)(vii-a). The Revenue claims that in respect of the sum in excess of Rs. 4,000 which is not exempt as mentioned above, the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?" We fail to see how the provisions of section 192 of the Act come into operation at all in this case, when admittedly the sum paid to Mr. Larner is not chargeable as income from salary in his hands. It is not the Revenue's case that any part of the sum paid to Mr. Larner is liable to be assessed in his hands as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The whole claim of the Revenue is based on a misapprehension that the tax which ought to be paid by Mr. Larner was paid by the assessee-company and such tax ought to have been deducted at source at the time of payment to Mr. Larner. The facts do not, however, support this claim of the Revenue inasmuch as the Central Government approved the contract of service to pay salary, without payment of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
