- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
ITAT relief to senior advocate Harish Salve allowed the credit of taxes paid on overseas income The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the credit of taxes paid on overseas income, providing relief to senior advocate Harish Salve, The advocate had filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) declaring his income from business, capital gain and other sources amounting...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
ITAT relief to senior advocate
Harish Salve allowed the credit of taxes paid on overseas income
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the credit of taxes paid on overseas income, providing relief to senior advocate Harish Salve,
The advocate had filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) declaring his income from business, capital gain and other sources amounting to a total of Rs.93,05,67,910. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income in 2017, mentioning the total income of Rs.93,40,35,870.
The case was scrutinized and assessment was framed under the IT Act, whereby the total income was determined at Rs.94,40,20,730.
Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer (AO), the assessee carried the matter before the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
During the assessment proceedings and on perusal of the 'Profit and Loss' account, the AO had noticed that the assessee had claimed Rs.99,84,863 under the head 'Assistance to Law Students.' He was asked to justify how the facts for earlier years were different from the year under consideration and why the aforesaid expenses were not disallowed as in the earlier years.
The assessee filed detailed submissions and inter alia submitted that he was focusing on building an international practice and spent a considerable amount of time on international arbitration.
The Coram of the judicial member, Amit Shukla and accountant member, Anil Chaturvedi noted that the overseas income earned by the assessee in the UK had been offered to tax by the assessee in India. Out of the total tax of Rs.11,71,22,901 paid by the assessee in the UK, he was claiming credit of Rs.8,57,07,736 under the IT Act, since the corresponding amount of income had already been offered to tax in India and was accepted by the revenue department.
The tribunal ruled, "The credit of the taxes paid on such income deserves to be allowed. We, therefore, restore the issue back to the file of the AO and direct him to allow the credit of the foreign taxes paid as claimed by the assessee under the IT Act."