M/S Saipem (Portugal) Comercio Maritimo Su Lda v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dehradun
High Court
09 Feb 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
M/S Saipem (Portugal) Comercio Maritimo Su Lda v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dehradun
Date of order
09 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In M/S Saipem (Portugal) Comercio Maritimo Su Lda v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dehradun, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: (5) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily.
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. 3 of 2009
M/s Saipem (Portugal) Comercio Maritimo SU Lda
……………Appellant.
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dehradun.
…………Respondent.
Sri S.K. Posti, Advocate for the appellant. Sri Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the respondent.
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.
[Oral- Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.]
This appeal, preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 12[th] September 2008, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi, whereby said authority has allowed the Income Tax Appeal No. 2456/Del/2007 (Assessment Year 2005-06), filed by the revenue.
(2) Heard.
(3) The impugned order challenged before us shows that the appeal of the revenue has been allowed following the
principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. CIT-214 CTR 192 and the one passed in CIT Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc.-213 CTR 547.
(4) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and after going through the impugned order, we do not find this case fit for admission as the questions of law raised are already answered by Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned two cases.
(5) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily.
(B.S. Verma, J.)
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)09.02.2009
NS
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.