COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS GOSLINO MARIO
2001 P T D 985
[241 I T R 312]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. P. Bharucha and R. C. Lahoti, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Versus
GOSLINO MARIO and others
Civil Appeal No. 4153 of 1996, decided on /01/.
th
April, 1999. (Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated July 18, 1989, of the Gauhati High Court in Income‑tax Reference No. 4 of 1984).
(a) Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Income deemed to accrue or arise in India‑‑‑Salary and allowances of foreign technician‑‑‑Law applicable‑‑‑Explanation to S.9 (1)(ii) applicable only from 1‑4‑1979‑‑‑Salary and allowances paid by Indian company to Italian concern for services rendered in India by foreign technicians in, accounting year relevant to assessment year 1976‑77‑‑‑Not assessable in hands of foreign technicians in assessment year 1976‑77 under Indian Income Tax Act, 1961‑‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.9.
The entire amount of salaries and allowances paid by the Fertilizer Corporation of India to T of Italy for services rendered by the assessee, a foreign technician deputed to the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. by the Italian concern in terms of the agreement between the Fertilizer Corporation of India and the Italian concern, was not assessable in the hands of the foreign technician for the assessment year 1976‑77.
CIT v. S.R. Patton (1998) 233 ITR 166 (SC) fol.
The entire amount of Italian lire paid by the Fertilizer Corporation of India to the Italian concern in Italy towards salary and allowances of the assessee‑technician in terms of the agreement between the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and the Italian concern was not salary earned in India within the meaning of section 9(1)(ii) as it stood before the amendment made in 1983 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1979, and as such it was not assessable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CIT v. S.R. Patton (1998) 233 ITR 166 (SC) fol.
Explanation added to section 9(1)(ii) by the Finance Act, 1983, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1979, was trot applicable to the assessee's case.
CIT v. S.R. Patton (1998)233 ITR 166 (SC) fot.
(b) Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑Allowance received by employee for meeting expenses wholly and necessarily incurred in performance of duties‑‑‑Daily allowance received by foreign technician‑‑‑Exempt from tax‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.10(14).
Rupee payment taken in India in the shape of daily allowances for the foreign technician was exempt under section 10(14).
CIT v. Goslino Mario (2000) 241 ITR 314 (Gauhati) (Appex.) (infra) affirmed.
Ranbir Chandra, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Neera Gupta, Advocates for Appellant.
Kailash Vasdev, Advocate for Respondents.
ORDER
The principal question relating to salaries and allowances paid by the Italian concern ‑to its technicians deputed to work with FCI Ltd: is fairly stated to be covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton 1998 (233 ITR 166). This covers the first four questions. The fifth question relates to the daily allowance that was paid by the Indian concern to these technicians. The Tribunal and the High Court have held that this daily allowance was exempt from tax under section 10(14) of the Act and it appears to us that it cannot be argued to the contrary. The appeal is dismissed affirming the answers given by the High Court. No order as to costs.
M.B.A./404/FC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.