M/S Deepwater Pacific 1 Inc v. The Assistant Director Of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun
High Court
29 Feb 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
M/S Deepwater Pacific 1 Inc v. The Assistant Director Of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun
Date of order
29 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In M/S Deepwater Pacific 1 Inc v. The Assistant Director Of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported in 299 ITR 238 and the substantial question of law, which is raised, is whether the amounts received by the appellant as mobilization advance for the purposes of transporting outside territorial waters of India should be included under Section 44BB of...
Decision: The Appeal will stand dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 03 of 2016
M/s Deepwater Pacific 1 Inc.
…….Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun.
……Respondent
Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram: Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
Dated: 29.02.2016
K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
The substantial question of law, which is sought to be raised in this Appeal, is answered against the Appellant by this Court in Sedco Forex International Inc. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported in 299 ITR 238 and the substantial question of law, which is raised, is whether the amounts received by the appellant as mobilization advance for the purposes of transporting outside territorial waters of India should be included under Section 44BB of the Act.
3. We see no reason to take the view that it is an amount which should be excluded in view of Section 44BB of the Act. This is a matter, where this Court has already spoken against the appellant.
4. In such circumstances, we see no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal will stand dismissed.
Rathour
(V.K. Bist, J.)
(K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
29.02.2016
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.