SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL DRILLING vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ANR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/158/2005HC UttarakhandUKHC01003036200501 December 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the appeal based on prior judgments. For the first question, the Court held that the issue had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of "Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another" (decided on July 22, 2005, in Income Tax Appeal No.165 of 2001). In that prior judgment, the question was answered in favor of the Revenue. For the second question, the Court noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had already 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, JT 2005(9) SC 639". In view of the Supreme Court's decision, this question was answered in favor of the assessee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., acting as agent for its employee Mr. Graham Doig, filed an appeal against a consolidated order dated January 28, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Bench 'E' New Delhi). The assessment year in question is 1997-98. The appeal was preferred against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun, and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Dehradun. The parties agreed to argue only two specific questions of law, abandoning the rest.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide two questions of law: 1. 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 9(1)(ii) read with Explanation). 2. Whether off-period salary was taxable under section 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation as it stood at the relevant time. The appellant's contentions were not explicitly recorded for the first question. For the second question, the appellant implicitly argued that off-period salary was not taxable under the relevant provisions. The revenue's contentions were not explicitly recorded for either question. However, the judgment indicates that for the first question, the revenue was favored, and for the second question, the assessee was favored.

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. 158 of 2005

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. as agent of its employee Mr. Graham Doig 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 Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Special Range, Dehradun having office

at Subhash Road, Dehradun-248001

…………… Respondents

Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the respondents.

Dated: December 01, 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 28.01.2005 for the assessment year 1997-98, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bench ‘E’ 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 that 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 9(1)(ii)

All 123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →