In Com E Ta X Ap P Ea L v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun
High Court
23 Mar 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
In Com E Ta X Ap P Ea L v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun
Date of order
23 Mar 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In In Com E Ta X Ap P Ea L v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
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
COURT NO.2
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
In com e Ta x Ap p ea l No.145 of 2005
Sedco Forex International. Drilling Inc. as agent of its employee Mr. Keith Stevens a company incorporated in the Republic of Panama having its registered office at No.8, Acquitino de la Guardia Street, City of Panama, Republic of Panama, Present address C/o A.F. Ferguson & Co. Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai
…………. Appellant
Versus
1. The Commissioner of income Tax, Dehradun
having office at Subhash Road, Dehradun-248001
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Dehradun having office Special Range, Dehradun having office
At Subhash Road, Dehradun-248001
................ Respondents
Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pitamber Maulekhi, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated: March 23, 2006
Coram: Hon. P.C. Verma, J.
Hon. B.C. Kandpal, J.
today.
Both the parties are ready to argue the matter
2. This appeal has been preferred against the
consolidated order dated 28.01.2005 for the assessment year 1997-98, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bench ‘E’ New Delhi).
year 1997-98, passed by the Income Tax Appellate
3. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the following only two questions of law arise in this appeal for
the determination. They do not press the rest of the
questions framed in the appeal:-
1. Whether the learned I.T.A.T. has erred in law
in holding that the appellant has failed to
satisfy the condition that ‘the remuneration is
not deductible in computing the profits of an
enterprise chargeable to tax in that other
State’?
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that
off period salary was not taxable under section 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation as it stood at the relevant time?
4. So far as the question No.1 is concerned, this question has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court {in which one of us (P.C. Verma, J.) was a member} in case of "Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. The
So far as the question No.1 is concerned, this
this Court {in which one of us (P.C. Verma, J.) was a
Commissioner of Income Tax and another”, which was
decided on 22.07.2005 in Income Tax Appeal No.165 of
2001. In the said judgment, the question framed in the
said appeal was answered in favour of the Revenue.
5. The second question No1 has also been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.351-355 of 2005 "Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. and others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Another, JT 2005(9) SC 639". In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this question is answered in favour of the assessee.
6. In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal accordingly.
(B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)
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.