Assistant Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Dehradun v. M/S Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. As Agent Of Mr. Hulmen Russeljames, Mr. Pisano Pasquale, Mr. Hutcherson Edwar Le, Mr. Wilson Norman George And M

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 13 of 2012 Assistant Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Dehradun ………. Appellant Versus M/s Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. as agent of Mr. Hulmen Russeljames, Mr. Pisano Pasquale, Mr. Hutcherson Edwar Le, Mr. Wilson Norman George and Mr. Watkin Tom Don C/o Nangia and Co. Rajpur Road, Dehradun …………. Respondent Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, present for the appellant. Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate, present for the respondent. Honʹble Prafulla C. Pant, J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard. 2. This appeal was admitted on 03.07.2012 on following substantial question of law:‐ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case that learned CIT (A) as well as learned ITAT erred in law in allowing exemption under section 10 (10CC) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the tax paid by the company M/s Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc for assessment year 2008‐09 was alleged to be part and parcel salary of Mr. Pisano Pasquale, agent and therefore this payment on behalf of the assessee continued a monetary payment falling outside the purview of section 10(10CC) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Since the amount in question in respect of which exemption was claimed by the assessee was given in the form of perquisite (defined under section Sub‐section (2) of Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961), in respect of which the tax was paid by the employer, as such there appears no illegality committed by CIT (appeals) or ITAT in allowing exemption under section 10(10CC) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue raised in this appeal is already decided by this Court in ITA No. 10 of 2010, Director Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi II vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc decided on 30.07.2012, upholding the stand of the assessee. 4. Since, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid appeal, this appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms of said judgment. 5. Accordingly, this appeal (ITA No. 13 of 2012) is dismissed. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 18.06.2013 Parul