M/S Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. The Additional Director Of Income Tax
High Court
03 Mar 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
M/S Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. The Additional Director Of Income Tax
Date of order
03 Mar 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In M/S Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. The Additional Director Of Income Tax, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal fails and is 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. 29 of 2016WithExemption Application No. 1823 of 2017
M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc.
..………. Appellant
Versus
The Additional Director of Income Tax
...………. Respondent
Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent.
Dated: 03[rd] March, 2017
Coram: Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.
K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral)
Heard. Exemption application is allowed.
2. We heard Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia would point out that the questions of law raised in this appeal are only to be answered against the appellant having regard to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., reported in (2008) 300 ITR 265. Accordingly, questions of Law Nos. (A) and (B) are answered against the appellant. As far as question of Law No. (C) is concerned,
nothing is established before us to show that the order of the Tribunal can be said to be perverse.
4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Rahul
(Alok Singh, J.) 03.03.2017
(K.M. Joseph, C. J.) 03.03.2017
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.
EaseValue