SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL DRILLING INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/107/2004HC UttarakhandUKHC01004886200412 December 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

Regarding the first question, the High Court held that it had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of "Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another" on July 22, 2005. In that judgment, the question was answered in favour of the Revenue. For the second question concerning the taxability of off-period salary under Section 9(1)(ii), the High Court noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had decided this in Civil Appeal Nos. 351-355 of 2005, "Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Another". The Apex Court's decision answered this question in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in light of these decisions.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., acting as agent for its employee Mr. Stanley Rothell, filed an appeal against a consolidated order dated January 30, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench 'F', New Delhi. This order pertained to assessment year 1993-94. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The appellant and respondents (Commissioner of Income Tax and Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax) were ready to argue the matter. The parties agreed that only two specific questions of law were to be determined, and the rest were not pressed.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two questions of law. The first question was whether 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' (Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements). The second question was 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. The judgment records no specific arguments made by either the assessee or the revenue for these questions, but rather refers to prior judicial pronouncements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,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.107 of 2004

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. as agent of its employee Mr. Stanley Rothell 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 Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

………. Appellant

Versus

1.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

having office at Subhash Road, Dehradun-248001

2.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Special Range, Dehradun having office

at Subhash Road, Dehradun-248001

………. Respondents

Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the respondents.

Dated: December 13, 2005

Coram: Hon. P.C. Verma, J. Hon. J.C.S. Rawat, J.

Both the parties are ready to argue the matter today.

2.

This appeal has been preferred against the consolidated order dated 30.01.2004 for the assessment years 1993-94, 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 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 second question has also been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.351-355 of 2005 “Sedco of Income Tax, 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.

(J.C.S. Rawat, J.)

(P.C. Verma, J.) Rajeev Dang

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →