Uttarakhand High Court
ITA/57/2008 of M/S ENSCO MARITIME LIMITED Vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD on 29 December 2008
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2008 M/s Ensco Maritime Limited ……………Appellant. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range-1, Dehradun. …………….Respondent. Mr. S.K. Posti, learned
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2008
M/s Ensco Maritime Limited
……………Appellant.
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range-1, Dehradun. …………….Respondent.
…………….Respondent.
Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the respondent.
Dated: 29th December, 2008Coram: Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘C’ Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in Income Tax Appeal No. 2399/Del./2007 for Assessment Year 2004-05 wherein the Tribunal has held that de-mobilization charges of Rs. 5,27,78,829/- and reimbursement of expenses of Rs. 2,66,16,729/- received by the appellant were also to be included in calculating the aggregate amount referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act.
2. Following questions of law have been framed in the memo of appeal :
“a. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating the true construction of Section 44BB of the Act? b. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that de-mobilization charges of Rs. 5,27,78,829/- received by the appellant from M/s Cairn Energy Pvt. Ltd. on account of de-mobilization of the rig outside India were to be included in calculating the aggregate amount referred to in sub-section (2) of section 44BB of the Act? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that reimbursement of actual expenses amounting to Rs. 2,66,16,729/- received by the appellant from M/s Cairn Energy Pvt. Ltd. were to be included in calculating the aggregate amount referred to in sub-section (2) of section 44BB of the Act? d. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the Ld. Tribunal are perverse in as much as no reasonable person correctly informed of the position of law would come to such conclusion?”
3. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of Commissioner of Income Tax andanother Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. as reported in [2008] 300 ITR 265 (Uttarakhand))well as judgment dated 20[th] September, 2007 comeTax Appeal No. 280 of 2001 (Old No. 99 of 1999)Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another.
4. Both the parties have agreed too that present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc.reported in [2008] 300 ITR 265 (Uttarakhand)as well as judgment dated 28th September, 2007 passed in ITA No. 280 of 2001 (Old No. 99 of 1999) Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut and another, and the present appeal may be disposed in the same manner.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the questions of law raised in the present the appeal are decided accordingly.
6. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid cited judgments. No order as to costs.
(S. Dhulia, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)
29.12.2008 29.12.2008
Rathour