Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Kammholz Kurt
2002 Latest Caselaw 2133 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. JAIN, J.

1. At the instance of the Revenue the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E, has referred under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, the following question for the opinion of this Court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the living allowance was exempt under Section 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961 ?"

2. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. Accordingly we have heard Mr. R.C. Pandey 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 is 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 stands concluded by the decision of the apex Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario and Ors. (2000) 241 ITR 312 (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.

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