Director Of Income Tax And Another ……… v. Saipem Uk Limited
High Court
04 Dec 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
Director Of Income Tax And Another ……… v. Saipem Uk Limited
Date of order
04 Dec 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Director Of Income Tax And Another ……… v. Saipem Uk Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Income Tax Appeal No. 13 of 2009
Director of Income Tax and another ………..
Appellants
Versus
Saipem UK Limited
……….. Respondent
Present: Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral)
A certificate was issued in favour of Buda, a juristic entity carrying on business at and from Netherlands on 14[th]January, 1998 under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of terms and conditions specified in the letter of intent dated 23[rd] December, 1997. Certain payments were made to Buda by the assessee. While those payments were made, recourse to deduction of tax at source was not taken. To that extent, assessee was made liable. Having had failed in the appeal, assessee went before the Tribunal and got relief. The Tribunal noticed two facts, namely, that no attempt has been made by the appellant to show that the payment that was made to Buda and in respect whereof tax was not deducted by the assessee was not covered by the letter of intent dated 23[rd] December, 1997, and that, the Assessing Officer has found, as a fact, that Buda did not have any permanent establishment in India during the relevant accounting year and, as such, its income was not liable to be taxed in India in terms of Article 7 of Indo-Netherlands Tax Treaty. These are factual findings, which have not been disputed in the grounds of appeal. In the grounds of appeal, however, it has been contended that the payment was made in August 1997, whereas the letter of intent is of 23[rd] December, 1997. This is a new fact, which has been
brought on record as that has not been dealt with in the order of the Tribunal. Be that as it may, the most important aspect is that, it has not been contended in the grounds of appeal that the payment was not covered by the letter of intent dated 23[rd] December, 1997. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.
( Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 04.12.2013 04.12.2013 04.12.2013 04.12.2013
P. Singh
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.