JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-Aggrieved by order of Tribunal in dismissing appeal filed by it, Revenue is before this court by filing this appeal raising following questions of law: "(1) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not adjudicating taxability of gross total income, when assessee has not paid any federal tax in USA as evidenced by W-2 furnished by assessee for financial year 2008- 09? (2) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not adopting grossing up concept in respect of assessee's Indian taxes borne by employer in reference to section 17(2)(iv) read with section 192(1B) of Income-tax Act, 1961?" facts, in nut-shell, are as hereunder: respondent-assessee is individual residing and working in India but receiving salary in US dollars in USA. assessee had offered net salary of Rs. 1,22,94,450 received, after deducting federal taxes, medical insurance, life insurance, etc., in his return for assessment year 2009-10 filed on July 27, 2009. company/employer had, however, withdrawn amount of Rs. 40,13,145 from salary of assessee as "hypothetical tax" to be paid in USA. It is accepted by Department that in lieu of amount withdrawn as hypothetical tax, employer/company paid tax liability of assessee in India in sum of Rs. 31,57,915. Consequent upon payment of tax as above in India, there remains certain amount withdrawn by company of assessee from salary, which has not been paid as tax in India, i.e., amount of Rs. 8,55,320. Assessing Officer held that assessee has not paid any federal tax in USA as evidenced by W-2 furnished by assessee for financial year 2008-09 and, therefore, made appropriate additions in assessment order towards said amount. Aggrieved by said order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that hypothetical tax has been brought in to bring in tax equalisation between domestic employment and overseas employment and, hence, hypothetical tax cannot be subject of addition and allowed appeal. Aggrieved by order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Revenue preferred appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal considered issue of computation of actual salary and same has been set out in detail in paragraph 7 of Tribunal's order in following manner: "7. assessee has received in US $ amount equivalent to INR Rs. 1,10,75,021 as salary on which amount of Indian Rs. 40,12,145 is withdrawn being'hypothetical tax' payable in U. S. In lieu for amount withdrawn as hypothetical tax, employer company had paid tax liability of assessee in India for Rs. 31,57,915. Thus, net amount withdrawn by assessee- company from salary of assessee is Rs. 8,55,230 (Rs. 40,13,145 (-) Rs. 31,57,915), thereby assessee has factually had received salary of Rs. 1,02,19,791 (Rs. 1,10,75,021 Rs. 8,55,230). (emphasis supplied)." Tribunal also took into consideration statement of analysis of hypothetical tax as submitted by representative of assessee and held in paragraph 8 of its order that there is difference in tax to tune of Rs. 8,55,320. note has been appended by authorised representative in analysis of hypothetical tax stating that under tax equalisation policy, this difference of Indian Rs. 8,55,320 is not eligible to be paid back to assessee. In this view of matter, Tribunal, after coming to conclusion, formula as to how salary received for purpose of tax to be determined, remanded matter back to Assessing Officer to verify whether on principles contention put forth by representative for assessee is correct. Aggrieved against said order of Tribunal, Revenue is before this court by filing present appeal. Mr. Swaminathan, learned standing counsel appearing for appellant, submits that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and U. S. A. enunciates concept that if income-tax has been paid in country of residence, then rebate will be allowed in other Contracting State. It is further submitted by learned counsel that Tribunal failed to note that assessee has not paid any federal tax in U. S. A. as could be seen from W-2 furnished by assessee and, therefore, entire gross salary received by assessee has to be taxed. It is further submitted that grossing up concept has not been adopted by Tribunal. In view of above infirmities in order passed by Tribunal, order of Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Heard Mr. Swaminathan, learned standing counsel appearing for appellant-Revenue and perused materials available on record. Even at outset, without any contradiction, it could be stated that plea of appellant-Revenue that there is no specific indication as to what is gross total income of assessee and, therefore, there is no clarity in order of Tribunal, deserves to be rejected. cursory look at order of Tribunal reveals that there is no such confusion in order of Tribunal, as portrayed by learned standing counsel for appellant-Revenue. Tribunal, in paragraph 7 of its order, which has been extracted above, has clearly stated that consequent to withdrawal of hypothetical tax payable in U. S., certain amount has been paid towards tax liability of assessee in India. Taking into consideration amount paid towards salary and deducting hypothetical tax payable in U. S., Tribunal has determined salary received after deduction made by employer towards hypothetical tax. cursory look at above calculation made by Tribunal would reveal that computation is just and proper and no clarification is required to be given by Tribunal, as it is for assessee to explain as to how this amount should be treated for purpose of determining tax. In view of well considered findings given by Tribunal, as noted above, this court finds no error warranting interference with order passed by Tribunal and, accordingly, we uphold order passed by Tribunal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal. In view of reasons as above, finding no merits, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajasekaran Balasubramaniam