M/S B J SERVICES CO. AS AGENT OF MR. SAID SALMI vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and ORS.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/97/2005HC UttarakhandUKHC01001747200505 September 20052 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, following 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 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, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The specific reasoning of the Tribunal that led to its order dated 27.10.2004 is not detailed in this judgment, nor is the precise amount in dispute. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s B. J. Services Co. Middle East, acting as an agent for Mr. Said Salmi, filed an appeal against an order dated October 27, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'C'. The dispute pertains to the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The core of the matter 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 regarded as income accrued in India from that date onwards.

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 under the explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite no services being rendered in India during that period, and considering that a subsequent amendment effective from April 1, 2000, specifically regarded such payments as income accrued in India only from that date? Assessee's contention: The amount paid for the "off period" should not be treated as income earned in India because no services were rendered in India during that period. The assessee relied on the fact that the subsequent amendment to the explanation of Section 9(1)(ii) w.e.f. 01.04.2000, clarifies that payments for "off period" or leave period are regarded as income accrued in India only from April 1, 2000, implying it was not taxable as such for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No. 97 of 2005

M/s B. J. Services Co. Middle East as agent of Mr. Said Salmi, Vikas Centre, 2nd Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai.

……Appellant

Versus

1.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Delhi Bench ‘C’ 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 a/b Mr. A. Chatterji, 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 27.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘C’, New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 3356/Del/2001. The appellant is the assessee. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1999-2000.

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.)

19.09.2005 19.09.2005 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 →