COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S HALLIBURTON AS AGENT OF MR. JALFUKA J.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/109/2000HC UttarakhandUKHC01003002200502 December 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital held that the substantial question of law raised in the appeal had already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 351-355 of 2005, titled "Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Another, JT 2005(9) SC 639". Following this precedent, the question was answered in favour of the assessee. The reasoning is that the Apex Court's decision on a similar issue dictates the outcome. The appeal was dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the Assessment Year 1990-91. The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellants) are challenging an order dated October 5, 1999, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench ‘SMC’ Delhi) in ITA No. 1356 (Del) of 1993. The dispute pertains to whether salary paid to the assessee, M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., for an off-period outside India was chargeable to Indian Income Tax. The High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital is hearing this appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the salary paid to the assessee for the said off-period outside India was not chargeable to Indian Income Tax Act in terms of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision, which is being appealed, is that the salary paid for the off-period outside India was not chargeable to Indian Income Tax. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, is challenging the Tribunal's finding on the chargeability of salary paid for the off-period outside India under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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. 111 of 2001 (Old No. 109 of 2000)

1.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut

2.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Circle, Dehradun

………Appellants

Versus

M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. As agent of Mr. Jalfuka J. C/o Arthur Anderson & Co. Maker Towers, F.Cuffe Parade, Bombay

….…Respondent

Dated: December 02, 2005

Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Krishi Shukla, Advocate for the respondent.

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

This appeal is against the order-dated 05.10.1999, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, (Delhi Bench ‘SMC’ Delhi) in ITA No. 1356 (Del) of 1993. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1990-91. 2. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are as follows:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the salary paid to the assessee for the said off-period outside India was not chargeable to Indian Income tax Act in terms of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

3.

The aforementioned question has 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.

4.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

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

(P.C. Verma, J.) Shiv

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 →