S. .F. INTERNATIONAL DRILLING INC AGENT N.J.HOVELL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ANOTHER

ITA/182/2001HC UttarakhandUKHC01009748200315 December 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M. GHILDIYAL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question raised in the appeal had already been settled by this Court in a previous decision, Income Tax Appeal No. 165 of 2001 (Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another). In that prior ruling, the Court had answered the question in the negative, meaning in favour of the Department and against the assessee. Therefore, following its own precedent, the Court answered the present appeal's question in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no specific directions for remand or deletion, and no issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., acting as an agent for its employee Mr. N.J. Howell, a Panamanian company, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenged a consolidated order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench 'E', New Delhi, for the assessment year 1990-91. The respondents were the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Circle, Dehradun. 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, Article 16(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the U.K. was not available to the appellant technician? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that Article 16(2) of the DTAA between India and the U.K. was available to the appellant technician. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that Article 16(2) of the DTAA between India and the U.K. was not available to the appellant technician. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments beyond this implied stance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL.

Income Tax Appeal No.182 of 2001

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. As agent of its employee Mr. N. J. Howell, A company incorporated in the 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 Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai.

………. Appellant

Versus

The Commissioner of Income

Tax, Meerut having his office at

Income Tax Office,

Opposite Bhasali Ground, Meerut,

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

Special Circle, Dehradun,

Having its office at Income Tax Office,

Subhash Road, Dehradun 248001. …….Respondents

Sri Arvind Vashishth, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the respondents.

Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.:

Heard Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Posti, learned standing counsel for respondents.

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the consolidated order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench ‘E’, New Delhi (ITAT) for the assessment year 1990‐91. The following question is raised for decision, which is as under:

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Article 16 (2) of DTAA between India and U.K. was not available to the appellant technician?” NCM:

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →