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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/87/2004HC UttarakhandUKHC01004869200401 December 2005Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the two questions of law as follows: Regarding 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" (Income Tax Appeal No.165 of 2001), decided on July 22, 2005. In that prior judgment, the question was answered in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, the High Court followed this precedent and answered the first question against the appellant. Regarding the second question, the Court noted that this issue had been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.351-355 of 2005, "Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Another". The Supreme Court's decision was in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the High Court answered the second question in favour of the assessee. The appeal was disposed of in view of these decisions.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., acting as the agent for its employee Mr. James Roy Alford, a Panamanian company. The appeal challenged a consolidated order dated January 30, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'F', New Delhi, for the assessment year 1996-97. The appellant and respondents agreed that only two specific questions of law were to be determined by the High Court, and the rest were not pressed. The procedural history involves the assessee filing an appeal against the ITAT's order, which was then heard by the High Court.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law: 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’? This question concerns the deductibility of remuneration under the relevant tax provisions. 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? This question pertains to the taxability of salary earned during periods when the employee was not actively working. The appellant's contentions were not explicitly detailed for each question, but the judgment indicates they were seeking to challenge the ITAT's findings. The revenue's contentions were also not explicitly detailed, but the outcome suggests they argued in favour of the taxability of the remuneration in the first instance and against the assessee on the second question, prior to the High Court's decision.

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.87 of 2004

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. as agent of its employee Mr. James Roy Alford 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 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 30.01.2004 for the assessment year 1996-97, 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 9(1)(ii)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →