Search Results For: salary


Sumana Bandyopadhyay vs. DDIT (Calcutta High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 17, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 5(2)(a): Salary of a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on-board foreign ships accrues outside India and is not assessable in India even if received by the seafarer into the NRE bank account maintained in India by the seafarer. CBDT Circular No. 13/2017 dated 11.04.2017 is clarificatory

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, income by way of salary which became due and has accrued to the assessee, a non-resident, for services rendered outside India and which is not chargeable to tax in India on the “due” or “accrual” basis, can be said to be chargeable to tax on the “receipt” basis merely because the foreign employers, on the instructions of the assessee, have remitted a part of amount of salary to the assessee’s NRE bank account in India?

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Utanka Roy vs. DIT (Calcutta High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 15, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 5/ 9: Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered abroad accrues outside India and is not chargeable to tax in India. The source of the receipt is not relevant. The CIT has wide powers u/s 264 and has to exercise them in favour of the assessee in terms of CBDT Circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955

The relevant test to be applied to decide whether the income accrued to a non-resident in India or outside is concerned, is to find the place where the services were rendered, in order to consider where the income accrued. The source of the income was not relevant for the purposes of ascertaining whether the income had accrued in India or outside India. The question whether the petitioner has rendered services in India or not is a question of fact

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

ITC Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 26, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 27, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 15, 17, 192: Concept of "salary" explained. Held that as "tips" are paid to employees of the assessee from an outsider on a voluntary basis and the employees have no vested right to receive the same, the same is not "salary" and the assessee has no obligation to deduct TDS

It can be seen, on an analysis of Section 15, that for the said Section to apply, there should be a vested right in an employee to claim any salary from an employer or former employer, whether due or not if paid; or paid or allowed, though not due. In CIT v. L.W. Russel reported in 53 ITR 91 (SC), this Court dealt with the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1922 Act, which preceded Sections 15 and 17 of the present Act and held that it is necessary for the employee to have a vested right to receive an amount from his employer before he could be brought to tax under the head “salaries”; Tips being purely voluntary amounts that may or may not be paid by customers for services rendered to them would not, therefore, fall within Section 15(b) at all. Also, it is clear that salary must be paid or allowed to an employee in the previous year “by or on behalf of” an employer. Even assuming that the expression “allowed” is an expression of width, the salary must be paid by or on behalf of an employer. It must first be noticed that the expression “employer” is different from the expression “person”. An “employer” is a person who employs another person under a contract of employment, express or implied, to perform work for the employer. Therefore, Section 15(b) necessarily has reference to the contract of employment between employer and employee, and salary paid or allowed must therefore have reference to such contract of employment.

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

DCIT vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 15, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia)/ 192: Employees deputed pursuant to a secondment agreement are not "employees" of the assessee and so the amounts paid by way of reimbursement of their salary is not subject to TDS in the assessee's hands

The employees are not the employees of assessee Mahanagar Gas Ltd but employees of British Gas and they are working with assessee only in view of secondment agreement. As per joint venture agreement GAIL and British Gas have agreed to second, therefore, employees to the joint venture company i.e. Mahanagar Gas Ltd. on secondment basis and under secondment agreement certain employees have been seconded to the assessee. Since the employers were seconded for limited time of 2 to 3 years, the remuneration payable to these seconded employees were being paid by British Gas or GAIL recoverable from assessee on cost to cost basis. The nature of secondment agreement make clear the duties of second employees, their liabilities towards assessee and reimbursement of actual cost of remuneration, benefits and disbursement by assessee to the joint venture partners. These are reimbursements. Also the employee’s remuneration was allowable to tax in India then there would be tax deduction obligation on the employer who was responsible for making payment to the employees

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

CIT vs. Pritam Das Narang (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 17(3)(iii): Amount received by prospective employee for loss of employment offer is a capital receipt and is neither taxable as "salary" or as "other sources"

In other words, Section 17(3)(iii)(A) pre-supposes the existence of an employment, i.e., a relationship of employee and employer between the Assessee and the person who makes the payment of “any amount” in terms of Section 17(3)(iii) of the Act. Likewise, Section 17(3)(iii)(B) also pre-supposes the existence of the relationship of employer and employee between the person who makes the payment of the amount and the Assessee. It envisages the amount being received by the Assessee “after cessation of his employment”. Therefore, the words in Section 17(3)(iii) cannot be read disjunctively to overlook the essential facet of the provision, viz., the existence of ‘employment’ i.e. a relationship of employer and employee between the person who makes the payment of the amount and the Assessee

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

DCIT vs. Artemis Medicare Service Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 15, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 192 vs/ 194-J: Tests to determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship explained

Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a contract is a contract of service or contract for service and whether the employees concerned are employees of the contractors has never been an easy task. No decision of this Court has laid down any hard-and-fast rule nor is it possible to do so. The question in each case has to be answered having regard to the fact involved therein. No single test – be it control test, be it organisation or any other test – has been held to be the determinative factor for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Anil Bhansali vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 22, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 5(1) r.w. Art 16(1) of DTAA: Taxability of stock options allotted outside India by foreign co to NOR employee for services rendered in India considered

Without ascertaining how much of the SOTP is attributable to services rendered in India, the entire amount cannot be made taxable only because the money was received in India. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee having residential status of ‘not ordinarily resident’, only that portion of the stock awards and SOTP attributable to services rendered in India can form part of total income for the assessment year

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal
Top