M/S B.J.SERVICE CO.AS AGENT OF MR STYEPAN VUJEC. vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and ORS.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/59/2004HC UttarakhandUKHC01003829200405 September 20052 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, following its own Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. reported in (2003) 264 ITR 320. In that precedent, the Court had held that payment of salary for an "off period" constituted income earned in India, i.e., for services rendered in India, under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was therefore taxable. The High Court found that the present case was on similar facts and circumstances. The Court did not specifically address the argument regarding the subsequent amendment to the explanation of Section 9(1)(ii) as the primary basis for dismissal was the existing precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s B J Services Co. Middle East, acting as an agent for Mr. Stjepan Vujec, filed an appeal against an order dated January 29, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘D’. The dispute pertains to the Assessment Year 1998-99. The core of the dispute involves the taxability of an amount paid for an "off period". The assessee contended that no services were rendered in India during this off period, and a subsequent amendment to the explanation of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from April 1, 2000, indicated that such payments were only considered income accrued in India from that date onwards. The revenue's position, as reflected in the Tribunal's order, was that this payment was taxable in India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in treating the amount paid for the "off period" as income earned in India, in view of the explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite no services being rendered in India during the off period? 2. Whether the subsequent amendment to the explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from April 1, 2000, which regards amounts paid for "off period" or leave period as income accrued in India, supports the assessee's contention that such payments were not taxable for the Assessment Year 1998-99? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that no services were rendered in India during the "off period" and that the subsequent amendment to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective April 1, 2000, which specifically addresses "off period" payments as income accrued in India, demonstrates that such payments were not taxable for the Assessment Year 1998-99. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, it implies that the revenue contended for the taxability of the "off period" payment in India, which was upheld by the Tribunal.

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. 59 of 2004 M/s B J Services Co. Middle East as agent of Mr. Stjepan Vujec, Vikas Centre, 2nd Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai. ……Appellant Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘D’ New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Dehradun. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Circle, Dehradun …Respondents Mr. V.K. Bist, Senior Advocate/Mr. A. Chatterjee, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K.Posti, Advocate for the respondents. 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 29.01.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘D’, New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 46/ Del/ 2000. The appellant is the assessee. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1998-99. 2. The substantial question of law raised in the appeal is as follows:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is legally justified in treating the amount paid for the “off period” as the income earned in India in view of the explanation to section 9(1)(ii) while admittedly no service has been rendered during off period in India and inasmuch as, the subsequent amendment made in the explanation w.e.f. 01.04.2000 shows that the amount paid for “off period” or leave period is regarded as the income accrued in India only w. e. f. 01.04.2000?”

3.

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) 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, this appeal is dismissed.

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

15.09.

2005 15.09.2005 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 →