SEDCO FOREX INT DRILL. AS AGENT T.ALISTAIR COOK vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ANR

ITA/141/2005HC UttarakhandUKHC01004245200522 December 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M. GHILDIYAL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital, following its own previous judgment in Income Tax Appeal No. 165 of 2001 (Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another) dated July 22, 2005, decided the question in the negative, in favour of the Department and against the appellant. The Court held that the exemption under Article 16 of the DTAA between India and the UK was not available to the appellant technician, and consequently, the 'off period' salary was liable to be taxed in India. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with this prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., acting as an agent for its employee Mr. Alistair Cooke, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi, dated January 28, 2005. The ITAT had rejected the appellant's claim for exemption from double taxation for the assessment year 1998-99. The Tribunal held that the 'off period' salary was taxable in India. The appellant is a company incorporated in the Republic of Panama. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law by holding that exemption under Article 16 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the UK was not available to the appellant technician? Assessee's Contention: The appellant contended that exemption under Article 16 of the DTAA between India and the UK should have been available to the technician. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the 'off period' salary is liable to be taxed in India and that exemption under Article 16 of the DTAA was not applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 16

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL.

Income Tax Appeal No. 141 of 2005

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. as agent of its employee Mr. Alistair Cooke 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 rejecting the claim in respect of exemption from double taxation of the appellant for the assessment year 1998‐99 and holding that off period salary is liable to be taxed in India.

A question has risen for decision which is as under:

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law for holding that the exemption under Article 16

of DTAA between India and UK was not available to the appellant technician? SKSharma

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →