Income Tax Appeal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 148 of 2005 Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. as agent of its employee Mr. Michael Kingston 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-248001 Special Range, Dehradun having office Special Range, Dehradun having office at Subhash Road, Dehradunn-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 consolidated order dated 28.01.2005 for the year 1998-99, passed by the Income Tax the assessment Appellate Tribunal, (Bench ‘E’ New Delhi). The learned counsel for the parties agree that the 3. following only two questions of law arise in this appeal for the determination. They do not press the rest of questions framed in the appeal:- the 1. “Whether the learned I.T.A.T. has erred in in holding that the appellants have failed to the condition that ‘the remuneration in computing the profits of an enterprise to tax in that other State? 2. “Whether, the learned I.T.A.T. has erred in law holding that the appellants are not governed by provisions of the Agreement for Avoidance of Taxation (AADT)?” 4. The aforementioned questions were answered the Division Bench of this Court {in which one of (P.C. Verma, J.) was a member} in case of “Sedco International Inc. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax another”,which was decided on 22.07.2005 in Income Appeal No. 165 of 2001 and other connected cases. In the said judgment, the questions framed in the said were answered in favour of the Revenue. law satisfy is not deductible chargeable in the Double by us Forex and Tax Appeal No. 165 of 2001 and other connected cases. In the appeal 5. Following the above-mentioned judgment of Division Bench of this Court, we dismiss this appeal. a (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) Rajeev Dang