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

ITA/26/2003HC UttarakhandUKHC01006227200303 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 Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent is M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co., acting as agent for Mr. C. Wmcbridge. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the High Court was asked to decide on referred questions of law. The High Court's decision was based on its prior judgment in a similar case, Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. SEDCO Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd., dated October 9, 2003. No arguments were presented by 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 "OFF Period Salary" was held to be taxable under Section 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation as it stood at the relevant time. The reasoning likely aligns with the principle that salary earned for services rendered in India, even if paid during an 'off' period, is taxable. The second question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. This implies that the free boarding facility provided by the employer on the rig was held not to be a perquisite under Section 17(2)(iii). The ratio for this would be that such facilities, if integral to the employment on a rig and not conferring a personal benefit beyond the exigencies of service, might not be considered taxable perquisites. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law: 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 "OFF Period Salary" was taxable and that free boarding facilities constituted a perquisite. The judgment does not explicitly record the contentions of the assessee, but their position would be contrary to the Revenue's arguments on these points. The Revenue relied on the High Court's own prior decision in the SEDCO Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. case for guidance.

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 Application No. 26 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. C. Wmcbridge, New Delhi. ........................ Respondent

Mr. S. K. Posti, Adovocate for appellants. None for the respondent.

Coram: Hon. S.H. Kapadia, C.J.

Hon. M.M. Ghildival, J.

Date: 03.11.2003

PC:-

Affidavit providing services taken on record.

The matter is squarely covered by our decision dated 9th October 2003 in Income Tax Appeal No. 57 of 2002; The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun & another V/s SEDCO Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd.

The questions 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 a

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 →