READING and BATES DRILLING CO AGENT RAYMOND TATNELL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/160/2004HC UttarakhandUKHC01004928200406 December 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeal. It noted that the question of law regarding the taxability of off-period salary under Section 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in favour of the Revenue in CIT vs. Sedco Forest International Drilling Co. Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 320. However, the Supreme Court, in Sedco Forest International Drill Inc. and Others vs. CIT, Dehradun and Another (JT 2005(9) SC 639), set aside the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) was amended prospectively by the Finance Act 1999 and could not be applied retrospectively to assessment years prior to 1999. Since the assessment year in the present case (1998-99) was prior to 1999, the assessee could not be taxed on the off-period salary in view of the Supreme Court's ruling. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co. as Agent of Mr. Raymond Tatnell, is appealing an order dated July 9, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench 'B', New Delhi, concerning assessment year 1998-99. The assessee employed foreign technicians for offshore oil drilling. A claim was made that salary for 28 days spent outside India, to which technicians were entitled, was not taxable in India. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the value of perquisites for this period to the income and levied interest under Section 234B for non-payment of advance tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's order. The ITAT partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. 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? Assessee's Contention: The assessee claimed that salary for the period spent outside India was not taxable in India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the off-period salary was taxable. The AO added perquisites and levied interest under Section 234B. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO's order. The ITAT partly allowed the appeal, implying a disagreement with the revenue on at least one aspect of the taxability of the off-period salary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(ii),Section 234B,Section 208

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COURT NO.2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No. 160 of 2004

M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co. as Agent of Mr. Raymond Tatnell ……………Appellant

Versus

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

……………. Respondent

Ms. Krishi Shukla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the respondents.

Dated: December 6, 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 09.07.2004 for the assessment year 1998-99, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bench ‘B’ New Delhi).

3.

Brief facts of the case-giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant during the year under consideration employed foreign technicians for carrying on the work off shore oil drilling. As per terms of employment and nature of operation carried on by these persons, they were entitled to spend 28 days out of India after rendering services in India. On the basis of this, it was the claim of the assessee that the salary for 28 days off period, which they were entitled to stay out of India was not liable to be taxed in India. The Assessing Authority worked out

value of perquisites at the rate of Rs.270/- to Rs.290/- per day and added the same to the income. The A.O. also levied interest under Sec.234-B of the Income-Tax Act, as the assessees did not pay advance tax in terms of Sec. 208 of the Income Tax Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun affirmed the order of the Assessing Authority. In the second appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal.

4.

The learned counsel for the parties agree that only the following question of law arises in the appeal for the determination and they do not press the rest of the questions framed in the appeal: -

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?

5.

converted into Civil Appeal Nos.351-355 of 2005. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sedco Forest International Drill Inc. and Another, JT 2005(9) SC 639” has held that since the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was amended by the Finance Act 1999 and was prospective, therefore, it could not be made applicable in the previous years i.e. to say that no retrospective effect can be given to the Explanation, if the assessment proceedings are pending after the said amendment and accordingly the judgment of Division

Bench of this Court was set aside as the assessment year in dispute was prior to 1999. 6. In the present case also, the assessment year is prior to 1999, thus the assessee cannot be taxed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court “Sedco Forest 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 →