COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. READING and BATES EXPLORATIONS CO.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/525/2001HC UttarakhandUKHC01006290200314 October 2003Bench: OTHER4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of its judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., answered the first question of law in favour of the department and against the assessee. Consequently, the second question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The appeals were disposed of based on these answers. The specific reasoning for each question and the operative directions beyond disposing of the appeals are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The amount in dispute and the specific assessment years are also not recorded.

What were the facts?

These are a batch of appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun, against the assessee, Reading & Bates Exploration Co., acting as agent for various individuals. The appeals challenge orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The specific assessment years are not mentioned in the provided text. The respondent (assessee) did not appear before the High Court, despite an affidavit of service being filed. The High Court's decision is based on a previous judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deciding the first question of law in favour of the assessee and against the department, concerning the taxability of certain income or deductions. The department contends that the Tribunal's finding on this issue was incorrect. The assessee's arguments are not recorded as none appeared. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in deciding the second question of law in favour of the assessee and against the department. The department argues that the Tribunal's decision on this point was erroneous. The assessee's contentions are not recorded. (Note: The specific questions of law and the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act are not detailed in the provided text, only the outcome of the questions as decided by the Tribunal.)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

I.T.A. No. 525 of 2001

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. J. Dejean, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 535 of 2001

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. K. Millions, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 56 of 2002

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. R.J. Temple, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 59 of 2002

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. B. Mepherson, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 61 of 2002

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. S. Shakanum, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 23 of 2003

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. Taggarta, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 28 of 2003

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. M.D. Fertita, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 32 of 2003

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. Watchel D.T., New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 43 of 2003

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. P. Doherty, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 44 of 2003

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. M.J. Schmidi, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 49 of 2003

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. D.R. Dason, New Delhi

----- Respondent

AND

I.T.A. No. 50 of 2003

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun & another

---- Appellants Vs.

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. J.D. Hunter, New Delhi

----- Respondent

Mr. S.K. Posti, Counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents.

Coram: Hon. S.H. Kapadia, C.J.,

Hon. M.M. Ghildiyal, J.

Dated: 14.10.2003

PC:

Affidavit of service is filed today. Taken on record. Respondent is not present though served.

In view of our judgment in I.T.A. No. 57 of 2002 in the case of CIT Vs Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., we answer question No.1 in favour of the department and against the assessee.

In view of above judgment we answer question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against the department. Appeal disposed of.

(M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (S.H. Kapadia, C.J.) HN

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →