DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NOIDA, NOIDA vs. JAI GOGIA, NOIDA

ITITA 36/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2026AY 2022-2312 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue (DCIT) appealed against the order of the CIT(A) who had deleted an addition of Rs. 1,88,03,060/-. This amount represented salary income claimed as exempt by the assessee, Jai Gogia, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee, an Indian citizen and employee of NBC Fashion India Private Limited, was on assignment to TJX Vietnam Company Limited in Vietnam during FY 2021-22. He filed his return claiming this salary, received in India and subject to TDS by NBC India, as exempt under Article 16(1) of the India-Vietnam DTAA, stating he was a resident of Vietnam and exercised employment there. The AO disallowed this exemption, proposing to tax the salary in India. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,88,03,060/-. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee was a resident of Vietnam during the impugned period, as evidenced by the Vietnam Tax Residency Certificate. The Tribunal referred to Article 4(1) of the India-Vietnam DTAA which qualifies the assessee as a resident of Vietnam. Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions of the Delhi Tribunal in the cases of Yogesh Kotiyal vs. ACIT, Amit Laroya vs. ACIT, and Vishal Gulati v. ACIT, which held that salary income earned for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, even if received in India, provided the assessee is a non-resident and the services are rendered outside India. The Tribunal also cited the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Estienne Andreas and Others, upheld by the Supreme Court, and Karnataka High Court in Prahlad Vijendra Rao, and Calcutta High Court in Utanka Roy, reinforcing that the place of service rendering is material for determining the accrual of income. The Tribunal further noted that the Revenue itself had accepted the assessee's similar claim for AY 2019-20. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,88,03,060/- claimed as exempt salary, considering it was paid by an Indian employer (NBC Fashion India Private Limited) with TDS deducted under Section 192 and received in the assessee's Indian resident account. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the addition is being made under Section 5(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (receipt of income in India), while Section 9(1)(i) discusses accrual of income in India. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the CIT(A) erred in law by not appreciating that the assessee was on deputation to Vietnam from April 2018 to end of 2023, and failed to explain why salary could not be received in Vietnam or paid by a Vietnamese employer. 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the CIT(A) erred in law by not appreciating that the assessee received salary in India and did not furnish evidence of remitting funds to Vietnam, raising questions about his living expenses in Vietnam. 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the CIT(A) erred in law by not appreciating that the assessee had not justified the arrangement of receiving salary in India, claiming exemption, and showing it as income in Vietnam. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that he was physically present in India for only 29 days in FY 2021-22, qualifying as a Non-Resident under Section 6(1). He was a Tax Resident of Vietnam for CY 2021 and 2022, evidenced by a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC). The salary, though paid through an Indian payroll for administrative convenience, was for employment exercised in Vietnam. Therefore, it was exempt under Article 16(1) of the India-Vietnam DTAA, read with Section 90 of the Act. The assessee also relied on his own case for AY 2019-20 where a similar claim was accepted. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the order of the AO, emphasizing that the salary was paid by an Indian employer, TDS was deducted, and the salary was received in an Indian account. They argued that the exemption claim was not justified, especially given the assessee's deputation to Vietnam and the lack of explanation for not receiving salary in Vietnam.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 192,Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 250,Section 5(2)(a),Section 9(1)(i),Section 6(1),Section 90,Section 15(1)(a),Section 5(2),Section 9(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. VIKAS AWASTHY & SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AR
For Respondent: Shri M. V. Ramesh, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The above captioned appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) – 2, Noida dated 12.12.2025, passed by Income Tax Department, CIT(A)-2, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO) under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) against the assessment order dated 29.04.2024 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

IT(IT)A No. 36/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2022-23] 144C of the Act by DDIT/ADIT (INTL TXN), Noida (hereinafter referred to as AO) for Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 192

All 841 judgments and leading authorities on Section 192 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →