« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Mock Test Papers Series - I & II for Students appearing in CA Foundation January 2027 Examination.  Income Tax Rules 2026: CBDT Introduces Revised Form 161 for Penalty Waiver, Clarifies Misreporting Categories and Taxpayer Relief  ITR Filing and Income Tax Audit Deadline Extended: 5 Critical Things Taxpayers Must Know  Filing Belated ITR for AY 2026-27? Know Which Losses You Can Carry Forward and Which You May Lose  CBDT Extends Tax Audit Report Deadline to October 21, ITR Filing Last Date to November 21 for AY 2026-27  CBDT Extends AY 2026-27 ITR Filing Deadline for Tax-Audit Cases: New Dates and Key Compliance Details  Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window  Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do  Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid  Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck  Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money «  More deals likely under I-T lens... Draft non-compete covenants with care... » I-T deptt moves SC on Ericsson`s tax liability December, 08th 2007 The Income Tax Department has sought the Supreme Court's directions on whether Ericsson Telephone Corporation India AB was liable to deduct tax at source on portion of salaries (child education expenses) paid to its expatriate staff. A bench headed by Justice H K Sema while admitting the I-T department's appeal clubbed the matter with a similar petition of Itochu Corporation pending before it. According to the department, Ericsson was not deducting tax at source on the portion of salary paid to its expatriate employees. The assessing officer had held the assessee in default for lower deduction of tax at source and asked it to pay tax of over Rs 33.60 lakh and Rs 28.65 lakh for financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively -- 100 per cent of the tax not deducted at source. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) had allowed Ericsson's appeal by holding that its action was bonafide and the default under section 192 occurred due to genuine belief of the Swedish principles that the reimbursements related to child education were not taxable in India as the same were non-taxable in that country. Both income tax appellate tribunal and the Delhi High Court had upheld the cit order. Earlier, the department had challenged a Delhi High Court order which had held that Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt lTd was not liable to pay tax on salaries paid to its expatriate employees by its foreign partner outside India. The Supreme Court had also admitted the appeal seeking its direction on whether domestic companies must deduct tax at source on salaries paid to their expatriate staff and if tax can be levied on these employees on wages given abroad by foreign joint venture partners of the Indian firms.