| Case ID |
73642223-4f02-4410-b794-e45a82d42727 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL (L) No. 3823 OF 2008 & OTHERS |
| Decision Date |
Oct 15, 2009 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, Emilio Ruiz Berdejo, stating that the interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not permissible as the employer, a non-resident company, had already discharged the tax liability of the employee with interest. The court emphasized that the employee-assessee could not be subjected to additional interest under these sections when the employer had already paid the tax due. This decision highlights the legal nuances regarding tax liabilities of expatriates and the responsibilities of employers concerning TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) obligations. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the applicability of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the tax obligations of an expatriate employee and his employer, a non-resident company. The employee received salary both from India and abroad but failed to disclose the foreign income in his tax return. The Assessing Officer added this undisclosed income and levied interest for non-payment of advance tax. The Bombay High Court found that since the employer had already paid the necessary tax and interest, the employee should not be subjected to further interest claims. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of employers in TDS compliance and protects employees from double taxation in similar scenarios. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Emilio Ruiz Berdejo,
Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune
|
| Judges |
V.C. Daga,
J.P. Devadhar
|
| Lawyers |
Vimal Gupta for the Appellant,
F.V. Irani and A.K. Jasani for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune
|
| Respondents |
Emilio Ruiz Berdejo
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 1991,
(2010) 320 ITR 190,
(2010) 186 TAXMAN 390
|
| Other Citations |
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 / 163 Taxman 355 (SC),
CIT v. Pranoy Roy [2009] 309 ITR 231 / 179 Taxman 53 (SC),
Sumit Bhattacharya v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 112 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB),
Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT[2005] 95 ITD 269 (Delhi) (SB),
Dr. Prannoy Roy v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 755 / 121 Taxman 314 (Delhi),
DIT (International Taxation) v. NGC Network Asia LLC[2009] 313 ITR 187 (Mum.),
CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225 / 178 Taxman 505 (SC),
CIT v. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 320 / [2004] 134 Taxman 109 (Uttaranchal)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
234A,
234B,
234C,
260A
|