Income Tax Appeal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut
High Court
09 Dec 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
Income Tax Appeal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut
Date of order
09 Dec 2005
Assessment year(s)
1992-93
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Income Tax Appeal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Decision: Following the above-mentioned judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, we dismiss this appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
COURT NO.2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
Income Tax Appeal No.08 of 2002
Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. as agent of its employee Mr. W.Nolan 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, Meerut
having office at Income Tax Office, Opp. Bhasali Ground, Meerut Meerut
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Special Circle, Dehradun having office
at Subhash Road, Dehradun-248001
………. Respondents
Ms. Tehmina Punwani, Senior Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated: December 09, 2005
Coram: Hon. P.C. Verma, J.
Hon. J.C.S. Rawat, J.
Both the parties are ready to argue the matter today.
2. This appeal has been preferred against consolidated order dated 31.05.2001 for the assessment year 1992-93, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bench ‘D’ New Delhi).
the
1992-93, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bench
3. The learned counsel for the parties agree that only the following 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 appellants have 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 learned I.T.A.T. has erred in law in
holding that the appellants are not governed by the
provisions of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double
Taxation (AADT)?”
4.
The aforementioned questions were answered by the
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
Commissioner of Income Tax and another”, which was decided on
22.07.2005 in Income Tax Appeal No.165 of 2001 and other
connected cases. In the said judgment, the questions framed in
the said appeal were answered in favour of the Revenue.
5.
Following the above-mentioned judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court, we dismiss this appeal.
Rajeev Dang
(J.C.S. Rawat, 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.