C.I.T.Wb-VII,Cal. v. Jan Nuyten
[Citation -2015-LL-0129-21]

Citation 2015-LL-0129-21
Appellant Name C.I.T.Wb-VII,Cal.
Respondent Name Jan Nuyten
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/01/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: He came to this country on a contract basis and thereafter left. The question for consideration is whether the contributions made by the employer towards the pension fund maintained abroad are taxable in the hands of the employee/assessee. The Tribunal and the CIT both answered the question in the negative. Point was taken before the Tribunal as to whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer which was the subject matter of appeal both before the Tribunal and the CIT(A), was permissible in exercise of power under Section 143(1)(a) which permits merely prima facie adjustments. The learned Tribunal consciously did not answer this question. As a matter of fact, they refused to answer this question. The question itself strikes at the root of the matter.


ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No. 90 of 2000 C.I.T.WB-VII,CAL. Versus DR.JAN NUYTEN BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 29th January, 2015. For Appellant : Mr. M. P. Agarwal, Adv. Court : This is appeal preferred by revenue against judgment and order dated 17th October, 1999. No notice of appeal has been served. respondent/assessee is foreigner. He came to this country on contract basis and thereafter left. question for consideration is whether contributions made by employer towards pension fund maintained abroad are taxable in hands of employee/assessee. Tribunal and CIT (A) both answered question in negative. Point was taken before Tribunal as to whether addition made by Assessing Officer which was subject matter of appeal both before Tribunal and CIT(A), was permissible in exercise of power under Section 143(1)(a) which permits merely prima facie adjustments. Whether or not contribution in this case 2 was taxable in hands of assessee, Mr. Agarwal did not dispute, was debatable point and therefore, could not have been raked up in exercise of power under Section 143(1)(a). learned Tribunal consciously did not answer this question. As matter of fact, they refused to answer this question. But question itself strikes at root of matter. For aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to take up this appeal. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sm C.I.T.Wb-VII,Cal. v. Jan Nuyten
Report Error