SEDCO FOREX INT. DRILLING AGENT MR.ERIC COWAN vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ANR

ITA/142/2005HC UttarakhandUKHC01004246200523 December 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M. GHILDIYAL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the exemption under Article 16 of the DTAA between India and the UK was not available to the appellant technician. This decision was based on a previous judgment of the same court, dated July 22, 2005, passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 165 of 2001 (Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another). In that prior case, the court had answered the identical question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court decided the present question accordingly. The appeal was disposed of in light of this decision, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., acting as an agent for its employee Mr. Eric Cowan, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated January 28, 2005. This order pertained to the assessment year 1998-99. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The core of the dispute revolved around the availability of exemption under Article 16 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the UK for the appellant technician. The High Court was required to answer a specific question of law framed for this purpose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law by holding that the exemption under Article 16 of the DTAA between India and the UK was not available to the appellant technician? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the exemption under Article 16 of the DTAA should have been available to the technician. (Implied by the question of law and the appeal). Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the exemption under Article 16 of the DTAA was not applicable to the appellant technician. (Implied by the Tribunal's order and the High Court's decision in favour of the department).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL.

Income Tax Appeal No. 142 of 2005

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. as agent of its employee Mr. Eric Cowan a company incorporated in Republic of Panama having its registered office at no. 8, Acquitino de la Guardia Street, City of Panama, Republic of Panama, present address, C/o A.F. Ferguson & Co. Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. …………. Appellant

Versus

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun having office at Subhash Road, Dehradun.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Circle, Dehradun, having its office at Subhash Road, Dehradun.

………………Respondents

Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J.:

Heard Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. K. Posti, learned standing counsel for respondent.

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 28.01.2005 pertaining to the assessment year 1998 ‐ 99. In this appeal, we required to answer question of law, which is as under:

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law holding that the exemption under Article 16 of AADT between India and UK was not available to the appellant technician? SKSharma

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →