TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation is made on the aspect of any existing contractual liability between the assessee and its employees inasmuch as the income tax liability. Hence, setting aside the impugned order, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-consider the matter sans answering the substantial questions of law raised herein. - I.T.A.No.419/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2021 - HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI APPELLANT (BY SRI CHYTHANYA.K.K., ADV.) RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) JUDGMENT S. SUJATHA, J., This appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act for short] assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to which final assessment order was passed disallowing deduction under Section 37[1] of the Act in respect of expatriate costs incurred by the assessee s permanent establishment. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal which came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the expatriate employees of the head office were monitoring the marketing activities of the branch. This cost was included in the operational cost on which marked up has been earned by the branch and offered for tax, the TPO has not excluded this expense from the cost base. Drawing the attention of the Court to Profit and Loss Account, submitted that the personal cost of ₹ 6,87,99,704/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is beneficial to refer to the relevant substantial question of law considered by this Court in M/s Rambus Chip Technologies [India] Pvt. Ltd., supra , and the same is extracted hereunder: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the addition made by the assessing authority in respect of amount of income-tax of ₹ 14,85,677/- paid by the assessee-company on behalf of an expatriate employee Mr.Prakash Bare when the tax payment on the salary was liability of the employee and not that of the assessee? 8. The said question is answered referring to the findings of the High Court of Jharkhand in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-consider the matter sans answering the substantial questions of law raised herein. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following: ORDER i] Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench bearing ITA No.1282/Bang/2011 is set aside sans answering the substantial questions of law raised. ii] The matter is restored to file of the Assessing Officer to re-consider the matter in the light of the Ruling of this Court in ITA No.56/2016 [D.D. 31.07.2018] in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s. Rambus Chip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd,. All the rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
