MRIDULA JHA JENA,MUMBAI vs. INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD, 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4844/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that salary received in India for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India as per Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The AO was directed to delete the addition and allow credit for TDS and the Chapter VIA deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, received salary for services rendered in Egypt but the payment was received in India. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition for this salary income, disallowing a deduction claimed under Chapter VIA. The CIT(A) upheld the addition for salary income but allowed the Chapter VIA deduction, directing credit for TDS.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the taxability of salary earned outside India but received in India. Another issue was the allowability of deductions under Chapter VIA and credit for TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(ii),Section 5(2),Section 6,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY&

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra/Ms. Snigdha, Ms. Reema Grewal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.12.2024Pronounced: 07.01.2025

Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai (in short "the CIT(A)") dated 26.07.2024 for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ("AO") vide order dated March 29, 2016 has erred in completing the assessment of the Appellant at an income of INR 53,07,765 as against the income declared by the Appellant of INR 6,89,690. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in upholding Aos stand

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 9(1)(ii)

All 123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →