TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Act, 1961 ? The facts found and/or admitted which are relevant to the dispute may be noted as follows. Mr. J. Gestin is a French technician who arrived in India on deputation on December 12, 1966, and was appointed by the Hindusthan Zinc Ltd., a public sector undertaking. The assessee worked with Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. up to January, 1968, and thereafter left India. The employment of the assessee with Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. was approved by the Government of India as recorded in a collaboration agreement between Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. and the French concern which deputed the assessee to work with Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. The assessee came back to India, subsequently on September 23, 1968, to work with Durgapur Chemicals Ltd., a West Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee daily allowance to all persons deputed which included the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also found that the assessee had arrived in India on December 12, 1966, and was not a resident in any of the four preceding financial years. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that in the facts for a period of three years from December 12, 1966, the remuneration received by the assessee was exempt from income-tax under section 10(6)(vii)(a)(ii). Such exemption was directed to be allowed to the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Revenue went up on further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal, on behalf of the Revenue, that the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. To appreciate the controversy involved, it is necessary to consider section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the relevant part whereof reads as follows: " 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included-. ...... (6) in the case of an individual who is not a citizen of India,- . ...... (vii) the remuneration due to or received by him chargeable under the head 'Salaries' for services rendered as a technician in the employment commencing from a date before the 1st day of April, 1971, of the Government or of a local authority or of any corporation set up under any special law or in any business carried on in India, if he was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax Act, 1961. The decision is of no particular relevance in the facts of the case before us. Learned advocate for the assessee also cited a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. E.Hiller [1977] 108 ITR 493 (Bom). In this case, Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered and construed section 10(6)(vii)(a)(ii) and observed, inter alia, as follows (at page 499): " .. ...... it seems to us clear that even under the first part of section 10(6)(vii)(a)(ii), a foreign technician would be entitled to complete concession or exemption conferred thereby even if within the initial period of 36 months he were to change his employer more than once, the only condition being that his contracts of employment with such employers during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
