ENSCO MARITIME LTD.AS AGENT PIETER PAKPAHAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/190/2004HC UttarakhandUKHC01004955200420 February 2006Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the two questions of law based on previous judgments. For the first question, concerning the deductibility of remuneration and whether the condition of non-deductibility in another state was met, the Court followed its own Division Bench decision in "Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another" (decided on July 22, 2005). That judgment had answered the question in favour of the Revenue. For the second question, regarding the taxability of off-period salary under Section 9(1)(ii), the Court relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in "Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Another" (JT 2005(9) SC 639). This Supreme Court ruling answered the question in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in light of these pronouncements.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Ensco Maritime Ltd. (formerly Dual Offshore Ltd.), acting as agent for Mr. Pieter Pakpahan, filed an appeal against an order dated July 26, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench 'F', New Delhi, for the assessment year 1998-99. The appeal was preferred before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The parties agreed that only two specific questions of law arising from the ITAT's order were to be argued, with the rest of the framed questions not being pressed. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was ready for argument on February 20, 2006.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in law by holding that the appellant failed to satisfy the condition that 'the remuneration is not deductible in computing the profits of an enterprise chargeable to tax in that other State'? This question turns on the interpretation of relevant provisions concerning the deductibility of remuneration in international taxation. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct 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? This issue concerns the taxability of salary earned during periods when the employee was not actively rendering services in India. The appellant, through its counsel, did not explicitly state its arguments for these questions. The revenue's contentions were also not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the judgment references prior judicial pronouncements that addressed these specific issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COURT NO.2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No. 190 of 2004

Ensco Maritime Ltd. (earlier known as Dual Offshore Ltd.) As agent of Mr. Pieter Pakpahan C/o Nangia & Company, Chartered Accountants, 75/7 Rajpur Road, Dehradun

… Appellant

Versus

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

…..….. Respondents

Ms. Krishi Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.

Dated: February 20, 2006

Coram: Hon. P.C. Verma, J. Hon. B.C. Kandpal, J.

Both the parties are ready to argue the matter today.

2.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.07.2004 for the assessment year 1998-99, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bench ‘F’ New Delhi).

3.

The learned counsel for the parties agree that the following only two questions of law arise in this appeal for the determination. They do not press the rest of the questions framed in the appeal:-

1.

Whether the learned I.T.A.T. has erred in law in holding that the appellant has failed to satisfy the condition that ‘the remuneration is not deductible in computing the profits of an enterprise chargeable to tax in that other State’?

2.

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?

4.

So far as the question No.1 is concerned, this question has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court {in which one of us (P.C. Verma,J.) was a member} in case of “Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another”, which was decided on 22.07.2005 in Income Tax Appeal No. 165 of 2001. In the said judgment, the question framed in the said appeal was answered in favour of the Revenue.

5.

The aforementioned second question has also been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 351-355 of 2005 “Sedco Forex International Drill Dehradun and Another, JT 2005(9) SC 639”. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this question is answered in favour of the assessee.

6.

In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal accordingly.

(B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)

Rajeev Dang

More judgments on Section 9(1)(ii)

All 123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →