TOMASEK ALEXANDER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions in the name of foreign technicians have been preferred by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Hardwar (hereinafter referred to as "the BHEL"), and are directed against the orders dated February 18, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, whereby he rejected the petitions of the petitioners under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), praying that the assessment orders framed by the Income-tax Officer, Saharanpur, be modified to the effect that the taxable income of the assessee-petitioners was nil.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri R. R. Agarwal, learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department.

(3.) IT has been contended that in pursuance of the agreement between BHEL and Skoda Export, the latter raised invoices on BHEL for the technical services rendered and that the petitioners received salary from Skoda Export in Czechoslovakia and no amount was received by them from BHEL in India. IT is further stated that it was under mistaken advice that BHEL deposited tax on the amount relatable to each technician, even though, the technicians have not individually received any salary or remuneration from BHEL. IT has been contended that each of the petitioners was in India for a period of less than 182 days and by virtue of the DTAA they could not be taxed in India. IT has also been contended that there was no relationship between the petitioners and the BHEL.