Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Economic Development and Associates

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Economic Dev. and Associates was engaged by the Asian Development Bank for an Indian micro-enterprise study. Against a USD 7,000 task remuneration, it received Rs.3,88,716 in AY 1997-98 and claimed exemption.

Source: PDF p. 1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Tribunal examined the appointment letter and agreement and treated the work as an expert mission under Article 56(2) of the ADB Act, 1966. The High Court recorded that coverage of the services under section 10(6)(via) was not disputed before it.

Source: PDF p. 2

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

Revenue’s appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal’s view did not give rise to a question of law.

Source: PDF p. 3

4. OUTCOME

The exemption remained allowed for this engagement and receipt.

Source: PDF p. 3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Read the appointment evidence with the result

The source identifies a domestic consultant and a specific task-related appointment. Merely receiving money from an international institution is not the evidentiary basis stated here.

Source: PDF p. 2

Retain both statutory strands

The reasoning refers to section 10(6)(via) and the expert-mission provision of Article 56(2). The note reports their use in this decision without inventing missing nationality or approval findings.

Source: PDF p. 2

Keep the holding within the recorded dispute

Revenue’s proposed question concerned a firm, but the Court recorded undisputed coverage of these services. The result is not a blanket exemption for all consultancy income.

Source: PDF p. 3