Commissioner Of Income Tax Dehradun v. M/S Sedco Forex Intl. Drilling In

COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITALIncome Tax Appeal No. 90 of 2003 Commissioner of Income Tax Dehradun …Appellant Versus M/s Sedco Forex Intl. Drilling In. C/o A.F. Ferguson & Co., Makers Towers, 4[th] Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ………..Respondents. Dated: February 20, 2006 Mr. S.P. Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Coram: Hon. P.C. Verma, J. Hon. B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal is against the order 25.07.2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, (Delhi Bench ‘B’ New Delhi) in ITA No.5653/Del/96. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1992-93. dated 2. are as follows: The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding that off period salary and accommodation facility provided by the employer on board the rig in high seas cannot be construed to be perquisite? free board the rig in high seas cannot be construed to be “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that no perquisite arose on account of free accommodation facilityFinance Act, 2003”? in charging interest under Section 201/201(1A) of the I.T. Act as amended by 3. As the Court has discussed in Income Tax Appeal No.57 of 2002, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. decided on 9[th] October, 2003;the reasoning regarding these questions are given as under:- In this Case, asseessee had to work on the rig. It was hazardous, arduous and continuous. Under such circumstances, free accommodation, food and beverages is a necessity. It is not a luxury. It is not a perquisite. Therefore, the Department cannot levy interest on the employer under Section 201/201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act. 4. favour of the assessee and against the Department. In view of the above discussion, the above questions of law are answered in the affirmative i.e. in 5. to costs. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No order as (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) Rajeev Dang