COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. READING and BATES EXPLORATIONS CO.

ITA/523/2001HC UttarakhandUKHC01006288200320 July 2004Author: OTHER5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The appeal by the Revenue challenges the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order for Assessment Year 1991-92. The assessee, Mr. G. Scholz, is a non-resident foreign technician employed by Reading and Bates Exploration Company, which had contracts in India. The dispute concerns the taxability of salary paid to Mr. Scholz for 'off periods' spent outside India and whether free boarding and lodging provided at the rig constituted a perquisite. The ITAT had previously ruled on similar issues in other cases, creating a potential inconsistency.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the salary paid for the 'off period' outside India is taxable in India. The Court reasoned that the contract for employment, encompassing both 'on' and 'off' periods, forms an integral scheme. The 'off period' is not merely a rest period but often involves training or maintaining fitness, which has a direct nexus with the services to be rendered in India. The Court noted that the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) clarifies that 'income earned in India' includes payment for services rendered in India, even if the contract is executed or payment is made outside India. The conduct of the employer in paying the entire salary from Indian operations further indicated the intention of the parties. Therefore, the entire salary for both periods was taxable under Section 9(1)(ii). Regarding the second question, the Court held that free food and beverages provided at the rig are a necessity due to the hazardous, arduous, and continuous nature of the work, and therefore, do not constitute a perquisite whose value can be added to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the ITAT was justified 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, especially when the ITAT itself had previously held such 'off period' salary to be taxable in India in multiple prior orders (ITA Nos. 5649/D/92, 1079/D/91, 411/D/93, and 1648/D/94)? The Revenue argues that the 'off period' is an integral part of the contract and the training undertaken during this period has a nexus with services rendered in India, making the salary taxable. The Assessee's contention is not explicitly recorded for this issue, but the ITAT's prior decisions suggest it argued against taxability. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the ITAT was legally correct in holding that free boarding and lodging facilities provided by the employer at the rig in high seas cannot be construed as a perquisite? The Assessee contends that these facilities were a necessity due to the hazardous and arduous nature of the work, not a luxury or perquisite. The Revenue's contention is not explicitly recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(ii),Section 4,Section 5(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessment Year 1991-92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No. 523 of 2001

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another

……… Appellants

Versus

Readings & Bates Exploration Co., As agent of Mr. G. Scholz, C/o Arthur Anderson & Co., 426, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, 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 02.01.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. Nos. 5808/Del/1995. 2. Mr. G. Scholz, respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Reading and Bates Exploration Company which, in the year under consideration, executed contracts in India. During the year under 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:-

Q

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 →