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

ITA/29/2003HC UttarakhandUKHC01006230200303 November 2003Author: OTHER2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun, and the Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun (the appellants/Revenue) against M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. A.R. Robertson (the respondent/assessee). The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The procedural history indicates that an affidavit proving service was taken on record, and the matter was decided based on a previous decision of the High Court dated October 9, 2003, in a similar case (Income Tax Act Appeal No. 57 of 2002). None appeared for the respondent.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the first question in the negative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. This means the Court held that "OFF Period Salary" was taxable under Section 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation as it stood at the relevant time. The reasoning for this decision is not detailed in the provided text but is stated to be based on the Court's prior judgment in a similar case. For the second question, the Court answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. This implies the Court held that the free boarding facility provided by the employer on the rig was not a perquisite under Section 17(2)(iii). The operative directions were that the appeal was disposed of, with no order as to costs. The specific ratio decidendi for each question is not elaborated beyond the answers provided.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law referred to it under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that "OFF Period Salary" was not taxable under Section 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation as it stood at the relevant time? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that a free boarding facility provided by the employer on the rig is not a perquisite under Section 17(2)(iii)? The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its findings on both issues. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not mention any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either side, other than referencing a prior High Court decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 9(1)(ii),Section 17(2)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No. 29 of 2003

1.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun.

2.

The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun.

………. Appellants

Versus

M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co., As agent of Mr. A.R. Robertson, New Delhi.

………. Respondent

Mr. S.K. Posti Advocate for appellants. None for the respondent.

Coram: Hon’ble S.H. Kapadia, C.J. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J.

Date : 03.11.2003

PC:- Affidavit proving service taken on record. The matter is squarely covered by our decision dated 9th October 2003 in Income Tax Act Appeal No. 57 of 2002; The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun & another V/s SEDCO Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. The question referred to us for opinion under section 260A of the Income Tax Act are as follows:- QUESTIONS: 1. “Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that “OFF Period Salary” was not taxable u/s 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation as it stood at the relevant time?” 2. “Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that free boarding facility provided by the employer on the rig is not a perquis

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 →