Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Manish Santosh Kejriwal, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 July, 2013
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,
धकरण मंुबई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES 'B' MUMBAI
सव ी आय.पी. बंसल, या यक सद य एवं
/एवं
BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND
ी डी. क णाकर रावु, लेखा सद य
SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.8698/MUM/2011
नधारण वष /Assessment Year 2008-09
The ACIT 26(2), बनाम Manish Santosh Kejriwal,
बनाम/
Above KG Mittal Ayurved 8, Prabhat Building, "B"Road,
Vs.
Hospital Bldg., Near Charni Churchgate,
Road Station, Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 020.
Mumbai 400 002
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AABPK 4247Q
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
अपीलाथ ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Preetam Singh
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M.P.Lohia
सनवाई
ु क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 04/07/2013
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 04/07/2013
आदे श / O R D E R
PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M:
This is an appeal filed by the revenue. It is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) -28, Mumbai dated 31/10/2011 for assessment year 2008-09. Ground of appeal reads as under:
" 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the basis that the addition is only on account of hypothetical tax of Rs.2,12,97,436/- received from the Temasek Holdings ( Private) Limited (THPL) towards tax equalization on account of assessee's posting to India with Temasek Holdings Advisors India Private Limited ( THAIPL) and further erred in holding that the a sum of 2 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.8698/MUM/2011 नधारण वष /Assessment Year 2008-09 Rs.2,12,97,436/- never accrued to the assessee and , therefore, was not "salary""
2. A sum of Rs.2,12,97,436/- being hypothetical tax was added to the income of the assessee by rejecting the contention that the said amount could not be taxed in view of the decision rendered by Mumbai ITAT in the case of Mr. Jaidev H. Raja vs. DCIT in ITA 2021/Mum/98. As according to AO the said hypothetical tax was assessable as salary income. Ld. CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee following the decision in the case of Mr. Jaidev H. Raja and also the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. Percy Batlivala (2010-TOIL-175-HC-DEL-IT).
3. Before us it was submitted by Ld. A.R that the aforementioned decision in the case of Jaidev H. Raja has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 25/9/2012 in Income Tax Appeal 87 of 2000. He has placed before us a copy of the said order and also a copy was also given to Ld. DR.
4. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO.
5. After hearing both the parties we find that the relief given by Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the decision of Tribunal rendered in the case of Jaidev H. Raja (supra). The said decision of Mumbai Tribunal has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide aforementioned order dated 25/9/2012. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) vide which necessary relief has been given to the assessee.
6. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/07/2013 आदे श क घोषणा खले ु यायालय म दनांकः 04/07/2013 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(डी. क णाकर रावु / D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (आय.पी. बंसल / I.P. BANSAL)
लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
मंुबई Mumbai; दनांक Dated 04/07/2013
3 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.8698/MUM/2011
नधारण वष /Assessment Year 2008-09
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy
षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)-
4. आयकर आयु / CIT
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानसार
ु / BY ORDER,
स या पत त //True Copy//
उप/सहायक
उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, धकरण मंब ु ई / ITAT, Mumbai व. न.स./Vm, Sr. PS