The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. ………. Dehradun. ……… v. M/S Reading & Bates Exploration Co
High Court
03 Nov 2003 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. ………. Dehradun. ……… v. M/S Reading & Bates Exploration Co
Date of order
03 Nov 2003
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. ………. Dehradun. ……… v. M/S Reading & Bates Exploration Co, the High Court (2003) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
Income Tax Appeal No. 48 of 2003
1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun.
2.The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. ………. Dehradun. ……….
Appellants
Versus
M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co.,
As agent of Mr. P. Conyers, New Delhi
………. 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 9[th ]October 2003 in Income Tax Act Appeal No. 57 of 2002; The Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Dehradun & another V/s SEDCO Forex InternationalDrilling Co. Ltd.
The question referred to us for opinion under section 260A of
theIncome Tax Act are as follows:-
QUESTIONS:
1.“Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that “OFFPeriod Salary” was not taxable u/s 9(1)(ii) read with theExplanation as it stood at the relevant time?” Period Salary” was not taxable u/s 9(1)(ii) read with theExplanation as it stood at the relevant time?”
2.“Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that freeboarding facility provided by the employer on the rig isnot a perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii)?” boarding facility provided by the employer on the rig isnot a perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii)?”
ANSWER:
In view of our above judgment, we answer the first question inthe negative that is in favour of the Department & against the assessee
and the second question in the affirmative that is in favour of the
assessee & against the Department.
Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs.
Gur
(M.M. Ghildiyal, J.)
(S.H. Kapadia, C.J. )
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.