The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. Dehradun v. Atwood Oceanics International, As Agent Of Mr. Verdun Lewis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 40 of 2003 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. Dehradun. ………. Appellants Versus Atwood Oceanics International, As agent of Mr. Verdun Lewis. ……… Respondent Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for appellants. None for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble S.H. Kapadia, C.J.Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Date: 03.11.2003 PC:- Affidavit proving service taken on record. The matter is squarely covered by our decision dated 16[th ]October 2003 in Income Tax Act Appeal No. 438 of 2001; TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Meerut & another V/s AtwoodOceanics International S.A. as agent of Mr. Gene Little. Two questions of law have been referred to us for our opinionunder section 260A, which are as follows:- QUESTIONS: (1)“Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that theContinental Shelf to the exclusive economic zone did notform part of India prior to 1.4.1983 for the purposes ofIncome Tax Act, 1961?” Continental Shelf to the exclusive economic zone did notform part of India prior to 1.4.1983 for the purposes ofIncome Tax Act, 1961?” (2)“Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that salaryincome earned by the employees for services rendered onthe rig before 1.4.1983 in the off shore areas outside theTerritorial Water of India was not chargeable to taxunder Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year1983-84?” income earned by the employees for services rendered onthe rig before 1.4.1983 in the off shore areas outside theTerritorial Water of India was not chargeable to taxunder Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year1983-84?” ANSWER: For reasons given in our above judgment, we answer both thequestions in the affirmative that is in favour of the assessee andagainst the Department. Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (S.H. Kapadia, C.J.) Gur