THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAIPEM SPA C/O M/S ARTHER ANDERSON and CO

ITA/517/2001HC UttarakhandUKHC01009203200316 July 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 26.02.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The respondent assessee is M/s Saipem S.P.A., an Italian company executing a drilling contract for ONGC. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 1990-91. The core of the dispute revolves around the tax treatment of free accommodation provided to employees on board a rig in high seas.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the substantial questions of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax and another Vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. The reasoning was that the work on the rig was hazardous, arduous, and continuous, making free accommodation, food, and beverages a necessity rather than a luxury or a perquisite. Consequently, the value of such accommodation could not be added to the income of the assessee, and the Department was not justified in levying interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally justified in upholding that free accommodation facility provided by the employer to its employee on board the rig in high seas cannot be construed as a perquisite, turning on Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally justified in holding that no perquisite arose from free accommodation provided by the employer to its employee, and consequently, the Assessing Authority was not justified in charging interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The ITAT held that free accommodation, food, and beverages provided on board a rig in high seas are a necessity due to the hazardous, arduous, and continuous nature of the work, not a luxury or perquisite. Therefore, their value cannot be added to the employee's income, and the Department cannot levy interest under Section 201/201(1A) on the employer. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, the appeal itself indicates their disagreement with the ITAT's findings on the perquisite nature of accommodation and the subsequent interest charge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 17(2),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessment Year 1990-91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No.517 of 2001

The commissioner of Income-tax Dehradun and another

…………... Appellants

Versus

M/s Saipem S.P.A. C/o M/s Arther Anderson & company 66 Marker Towers, F. Curre Road Bombay – 400 005. ……………. Respondent

Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the appellants. Ms. Krishi Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.

Coram : Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble P. C. Pant, J.

This is an appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 321/Del/95. 2) M/s Saipem S.P.A., respondent is a Company incorporated in Italy. In the year under consideration, it had been executing a drilling contract for O.N.G.C.

3) The substantial questions of law as framed in the appeal are as follows:

1.

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not legally j

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 17(2)

All 161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →