COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR.SAKAKIBARA YUTAKA

ITA - 111 / 2006HC Delhi03 August 20125 pages
For Petitioner: MR.JAGDISH RAI GOEL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the salary earned outside India and the rent paid for accommodation in India were not taxable in India as the assessee was 'not ordinarily resident'. The High Court upheld this decision, finding it in line with established legal precedents.

What were the facts?

An employee of Suzuki Motors, deputed to India for technical assistance, received salary from Japan and accommodation in India. The Assessing Officer treated the accommodation as a perquisite, but the assessee claimed it was not taxable in India due to his 'not ordinarily resident' status.

What were the issues?

Whether salary earned outside India and rent-free accommodation provided in India are taxable in India for an assessee who is 'not ordinarily resident'. Whether the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty provisions override domestic tax law in such cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 17(2),Section 10(14),Section 6(6),Section 5(1)(c),Section 9(1)(i),Section 90(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Dated of decision: 3rd August, 2012 + COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

MR.SAKAKIBARA YUTAKA

..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha with Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.: (OPEN COURT)

1.

We have considered the record filed by Counsel for the parties. On 21.02.2007, this Court framed following questions of law: -

“1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the rent free accommodation provided by Maruti Udyog Ltd. to the Assessee, an employee of Suzuki Motors Corporation (Japan) is not a perquisite in the hands of the Assessee under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the answer to this is in the negative whether the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided by Section 10(14) of the Act?

2.

Whether the Income Tax Appella

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 17(2)

All 162 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →