IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’
Bholanath Pal
V/s.
Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), International Taxation
IT APPEAL NO. 10 (BANG.) of 2011
[Assessment Year 2006-07]
MAY 30, 2012
ORDER
George George K, Judicial Member
This appeal instituted by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Bangalore dated 16.09.2010. The relevant assessment year is 2006-07.
2. The grounds of appeal read as follows:-
(i) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in denying the exemption claimed by the assessee, in so far as-
(a) 15 days during the period 1st April, 2005 and 31st December, 2005 to the extent of Rs. 1,72,013/-
(b) 3 months during the period 1st January, 2006 and 31st March, 2006 to the extent of Rs. 17,70,151/-.
(ii) That the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating assessee’s eligibility for claim of exemption in respect of salary both under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan.
(iii) That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for levy of interest under section 243D of the Act.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The assessee is an individual. He is a former employee of Motorola India Private Limited (Motorola India). During May, 2000, the assessee joined Motorola Japan Limited (Motorola Japan) as the Managing Director and he was working with Motorola Japan until April, 2006. He was transferred to Motorola Japan from Motorola India as part of intra group transfer. During the entire period between May, 2000 and April, 2006, the assessee was working wholly and exclusively for Motorola Japan (Courtesy page no.54 of the paper book filed by the assessee). The salary, for administrative convenience, was paid by Motorola India on behalf of Motorola Japan. It was submitted that this was mainly because of personal and other obligations which the assessee had to discharge in India. The salary was credited to the assessee’s bank account in India. Taxes were deducted under section 192 of the Act. During the previous year relevant to the concerned assessment year, the assessee had aggregate stay in India for 83 days (including the days of arrival and of departure).
3.1 The return of income was filed for the assessment year 2006-07 wherein he had claimed the status as non-resident and had declared the following income:-
(i) Income
Comments are closed.