SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
SUHAS C. SEN , Member , D.P. Sharma , Chairman Dr. Mohini Bhussry
Ms. Ruth Connolly -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax -Respondent
A.A.R. NO. 499 OF 2000
Decided On : 07-03-2001

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Neeru Ahuja, K. Ganesh Raj, Ms. Preeti Goel,R.K. Lachhiramaka

RULING

Mohini Bhussry - The applicant is currently employed with SAP India Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing (P). Ltd. (‘SAP India’). SAP India is an Indian subsidiary of SAP Germany. SAP India was incorporated in 14-3-1996 and is engaged in the business of duplication and distribution of SAP AG’s proprietary R/3 software in India. The R/3 software is an application software, which is used to integrate various business functions such as inventory management, quality management, etc., with the main financial system of the user.

2. The applicant is a resident of USA and was on regular employment with SAP Singapore, another company of the said group. SAP Singapore has deputed her to SAP India as its President for a period of 2 years commencing from 1-4-1999.

3. The duties assigned to her as President SAP India included coordinating the customization of the SAP software to suit customers requirement, training personnel in connection with the high-end technology operations of SAP India etc. She holds a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering and has 25 years of work experience in the Information Technology.

4. The application is made for claiming the benefit of the status of the ‘Technician’ under section 10(5B), so that the tax paid by the SAP India should not be treated as perquisite in the hands of the employee-applicant. Information technology is a field notified for the purpose of section 10(5B).

5. The jurisdictional Commissioner has opined that the applicant though technically qualified is carrying out administrative functions in India but her technical knowledge is not utilised in the business carried on in India. Therefore, it was argued that she is not qualified for the benefit of the section 10(5B) as ‘technician’.

6. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the applicant that she is accountable for providing software as per the specifications and needs of the customers which require utilisation of her technical skills. Reliance was also placed upon the earlier rulings of the authority where a liberal interpretation has been made about the utilisation of the knowledge while allowing the benefit of section 10(5B) to the respective applicants.

7. On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of both the sides we are of the view that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of the section 10(5B) as per her technical qualifications and experience in the field of information technology. Therefore, the questions raised in the application are answered in the affirmative as under :—

(a)Whether the applicant will qualify as a Yes

‘Technician’ in accordance with section 10(5B) of the Act; and accordingly.

(b)Whether, the taxes paid by the employer Yes

on behalf of the applicant would be exempt from taxation under section 10(5B) of the Act, for a period of forty-eight months commencing from the date of arrival in India.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top