M/S Hughes Services (Far East) Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut
High Court
21 Apr 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
M/S Hughes Services (Far East) Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut
Date of order
21 Apr 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Hughes Services (Far East) Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
I.T.A. No. 300 of 2001
OLD NO. 233 OF 2000
M/s Hughes Services (Far East) Pvt. Ltd. ........... Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut .......... Respondent
Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department.
Hon. P.C. Verma, A.C.J. Hon. M.M. Ghildiyal, J.
The matter is squarely covered by our decision dated 9[th ]October, 2003 in Income Tax Appeal No. 57 of 2002; The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun & another Vs SEDCO Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd.
The question raised before us is as follows:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, Tribunal is legally justified in treating the amount paid for the off period as the income earned in India in view of the explanation to section 9(1)(ii) while admittedly no service has been rendered during off period in India and inasmuch as, the subsequent amendment made in the explanation w.e.f. 01.04.2000 shows that the amount paid for off period or leave period is regarded as the income accrued in India only w.e.f. 01.04.2000?"
In our decision dated 9th October 2003 in Income Tax Act Appeal No. 57 of 2002; The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun & another V/s SEDCO Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd., it has been held as under:
"Therefore the payment of salary for OFF period was income earned in India i.e. for services rendered in India u/s 9(1)(ii).
Lastly, we would like to point out that in this case the assessment records show that from the income of the Indian
operations the salary in its entirety (including salary for the off period) has been paid by the employer Company. This conduct shows the intention of the contracting parties. Hence the entire salary for both the periods was taxable in India u/s 9(1)(ii)."
For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the above question in the negative i.e. in favour of the department and against the asessee. Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs.
(M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (P.C. Verma, A.C.J.)
Dt. 21.04.2004.G
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.