Case LawHigh Court › M/S Transocean Offshore International Ve...

M/S Transocean Offshore International Ventures Limited v. The Additional Director Of Income- Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun. .…...………

High Court 16 Sep 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
M/S Transocean Offshore International Ventures Limited v. The Additional Director Of Income- Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun. .…...………
Date of order
16 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S Transocean Offshore International Ventures Limited v. The Additional Director Of Income- Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun. .…...………, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

Decision: Following the said judgments of this Court, we also dismiss this appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2011 M/s Transocean Offshore International Ventures Limited, C/o NANGIA & Co. Suit - 4A, Plaza – M 6, Jasola, New Delhi -110025. ………….. ………….. Appellant Versus The Additional Director of Income- tax, International Taxation, Dehradun. .…...……… Respondent Present:Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the respondent. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief JusticeHon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date: 16[th] September, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) The questions of law posed in this appeal and indicated as such in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) & (d) of paragraph 3 of the memorandum of appeal are covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sedco Forex International Inc versusCommissioner of Income-Tax and another, reported in [2008] 299 ITR 238 (Uttarakhand). The said questions have been answered against the assessee, whose case in the said judgment was identical to the case of the appellant herein. 2. The question posed in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of the memorandum of appeal is also covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax and another versus Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., reported in [2008] 300 ITR 265 (Uttarakhand). That judgment was also rendered against the assessee, whose case stood in the same position as of the appellant herein. 3. Following the said judgments of this Court, we also dismiss this appeal. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 16.09.2011 16.09.2011 P. Singh
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan