Cit Vs. Sam Orie

Cit vs Sam Orie

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 21, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707661

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/707661
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Mar 21, 2003
Case Number: IT Ref. No. 42 of 1993 21 March 2003
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Prem Lata Bansal and; Ajay Jha, for the Petitione

Respondent

Sam Orie

Legal References

Reported In: [2003]131TAXMAN301(Delhi)

Excerpt

- d.k. jain, j.at the instance of the revenue, the income tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench-d, new delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) has referred under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the living allowance paid to foreign employees is exempt under section 10(14) of the act ?'2. these is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. accordingly we have heard ms. prem lata bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.3. as is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician in exempt under section 10(14) of the act. since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.4. answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of the apex court in cit v. goslino mario : [2000]241itr312(sc) , wherein it has been held that the rupee payment taken in india in the shape of daily allowances for the foreign technician is exempt under section 10(14) of the act. in view of the said authoritative pronouncement, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.5. the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

D.K. Jain, J.

At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the living allowance paid to foreign employees is exempt under section 10(14) of the Act ?'

2. These is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. Accordingly we have heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.

3. As is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician in exempt under section 10(14) of the Act. Since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.

4. Answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario : [2000]241ITR312(SC) , wherein it has been held that the rupee payment taken in India in the shape of daily allowances for the foreign technician is exempt under section 10(14) of the Act. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.

5. The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2003 Same Parties Cit vs Sam Orie Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation