READINGandBATES DRILLING CO.AGENT MR. EDDIE BRANUM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/135/2004HC UttarakhandUKHC01003863200428 September 20052 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law was whether the Tribunal erred in holding that 'off period salary' paid to the assessee was taxable under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its own previous judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. and connected cases reported in (2003) 264 ITR 320. In that precedent, a Division Bench of the High Court had held that the payment of salary for the 'off period' was income earned in India, i.e., for services rendered in India under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that 'off period salary' was taxable under the said section. Therefore, applying the ratio of the Sedco Forex judgment, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Reading & Bates Drilling Co. as agent of Mr. Eddie Branum, filed an appeal against an order dated 09.07.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’ New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 4434/Del/2000. The dispute pertains to the Assessment Year 1998-1999. The core issue revolves around the taxability of 'off period' salary paid to a non-resident employee. The assessee contended that this salary should not be taxable in India as the employee was not physically present in India during the 'off period' and the employment contract was executed outside India. The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun, argued for the taxability of this salary.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating the true construction of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with its Explanation? (Question of law) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the “off period” salary was chargeable to tax in India despite the fact that the non-resident employee was not present in India during the “off period”? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the salary paid for the “off period” when the employee technicians were physically not present in India and were required to make themselves available for training, on-the-spot demonstration, etc. as set out in the employment letter could be said to accrue or deemed to accrue in India so as to be taxable in India? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the salary paid to a non-resident employee under an employment contract executed outside India, for the “off period”, could be held liable to be paid on account of services rendered while the employee was in India? (Question of mixed law and fact) 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in basing its conclusion on suspicions and surmises and irrelevant material on record? (Question of law) 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as no reasonable person correctly informed of the position of law would come to such a conclusion? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The 'off period' salary paid to a non-resident employee, who was not physically present in India during that period and under an employment contract executed outside India, should not be taxable in India. The Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Section 9(1)(ii) and based its conclusion on suspicions and irrelevant material, leading to a perverse finding. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the 'off period' salary was taxable in 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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 135 of 2004 M/s Reading & Bates Drilling Co. as agent of Mr. Eddie Branum …Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun. ….Respondent Miss. Krishi Shukla/Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon. Cyriac Joseph, C.J. Hon. J.C.S. Rawat, J.

JUDGMENT

CYRIAC JOSEPH, C.J.(Oral)

1.

This appeal is filed against the order dated 09.07.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’ New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 4434/Del/2000. The appellant is the assessee. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1998-1999. 2. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are as follows:

(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating the true construction of Section 9 (1)(ii) of the Act read with Explanation thereto?

(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the “off period” salary was chargeable to tax in India despite the fact that the non-resident employee was not present in India during the “off period”?

(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the salary paid for the “off period” when the employee technicians were physically not present in India and were required to make themselves available for training, on the spot demonstration, etc. as set out in the employment letter could be said to accrue or deemed to accrue in India so as to be taxable in India?

(d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the salary paid to a non-resident employee under an employment contract executed outside India, for the “off period”, could be held liable to be paid on account of services rendered while the employee was in India?

(e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misdirected himself in law in basing its conclusion on suspicions and surmises and irrelevant material on record?

(f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as no reasonable person correctly informed of the position of law would come to such a conclusion?

3.

Though the appellant has raised different questions of law as quoted above, in substance there is only one question of law, i. e, whether the Tribunal erred in holding that ‘off period salary’ paid to the assessee was taxable under section 9 (1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In Commissioner of Income Tax- and another Vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. and connected cases reported in (2003) 264 ITR 320, a Division Bench of this Court held that the payment of salary for “off period” was income earned in India, i.e., for services rendered in India under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that “off period salary” was taxable under section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Following the above mentioned judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, the appeal is dismissed.

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

(Cyriac Joseph, C.J.) 28.09.2005

28.09.

2005 A

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 →