THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ORS vs. READING and BATES EXPLORATION

ITA/27/2003HC UttarakhandUKHC01006228200320 July 2004Author: OTHER5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun) appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 1993-1994. The respondent, Reading & Bates Exploration Co., acted as an agent for Mr. D.G. Clendennen, a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company executing contracts in India. Mr. Clendennen derived income from 'salaries' during his employment. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision regarding the taxability of salary paid for periods when the technician was outside India and the taxability of free boarding facilities provided at the rig.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the first question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the second question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that salary paid for off-periods outside India is taxable in India under section 9(1)(ii). The Court reasoned that the ON and OFF periods form an integral part of the contract, and the off-period, even if considered a standby arrangement or training, has a nexus with the services rendered in India. The payment for the off-period was considered income earned in India. The Court noted that the employer paid the entire salary, including for the off-period, from Indian operations, indicating the intention of the contracting parties. For the second issue, the Court held that free food and beverages provided at the rig were a necessity due to the hazardous and continuous nature of the work, not a perquisite, and thus their value could not be added to the assessee's income. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally correct in holding that salary paid to the assessee for the off-period outside India was not chargeable to Indian Income Tax under section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the ITAT's previous rulings to the contrary? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally correct in holding that free boarding facilities provided by the employer at the rig in high seas could not be construed as a perquisite? Assessee's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the assessee for the first issue. For the second issue, the assessee contended that free food and beverages provided at the rig were a necessity due to the hazardous and continuous nature of the work, not a luxury or perquisite, and therefore their value could not be added to the assessee's income. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's previous decisions held that off-period salary is taxable in India. For the second issue, the Revenue's argument is not explicitly recorded, but the court's reasoning implies a challenge to the ITAT's finding on perquisites.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 9(1)(ii),Section 4,Section 5(2),Section 2(45)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2004:UHC:2054

Assessment Year 1993-1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No. 27 of 2003

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another

............. Appellants

Versus

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., As agent of Mr. D.G. Clendennen, New Delhi

............... Respondent

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

Date: 20.07.2004

Hon'ble P.C. Verma, A.C.J. Hon'ble P.C. Pant, J.

1.

This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dated 21.08.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. Nos. 344/Del/1996. 2. Mr. D.G. Clendennen, respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Reading & Bates Exploration Company which, in the year under consideration, executed contracts in India. During the year consideration, respondent was in employment of this company and thus derived income from 'salaries' from it.

3.

The questions raised before us are as follows:-

QUESTIONS:

1.

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 9(1)(ii)

All 117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →