Bombay H.C : Mr. Parekh fairly states that the only ground on which the agreement has been disapproved by the Government is that the applicant was not in the service of a foreign employer as such and hence Thai Rayon Co. Ltd. could not be regarded as an employer of the applicant.

Counsel Appeared

Dinesh Parekh with D.R. Dhanuka & Miss S.G. Shah, for the Petitioners : S.P. Mehta with I.M. Munim & S.J. Mehta, for the Respondent

BY THE COURT :

Mr. Parekh fairly states that the only ground on which the agreement has been disapproved by the Government is that the applicant was not in the service of a foreign employer as such and hence Thai Rayon Co. Ltd. could not be regarded as an employer of the applicant. A perusal of s. 10 of the IT Act, 1961, and particularly cls. (7) and (8) thereof shows that where the intention of the lawmakers was to refer to income chargeable under the head ” Salary “, that has been expressly so stated in the relevant provision itself. In view of the absence of any such words in s. 80RRA of the Act, it cannot be said that what the section contemplates is only an amount received by an Indian assessee from a foreign employer as salary. In view of this, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the learned trial Judge.

[Citation : 170 ITR 136]