Uttarakhand High Court
ITA/42/2003 of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ORS Vs READING and BATES EXPLORATION on 3 November 2003
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 42 of 2003 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. ………. Appellants Versus M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co. As agent of Mr. G.P. Orsak, New Delhi.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
Income Tax Appeal No. 42 of 2003
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.
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun.
2. The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. ………. Appellants Dehradun. ………. Appellants
Versus
M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co.
As agent of Mr. G.P. Orsak, 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.
PC:-
Date: 03.11.2003
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; TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun & another V/s SEDCO Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd.
The questions referred to us for opinion under section 260A of the Income Tax Act are as follows:- QUESTIONS:
(1) “Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that “ OFF Period Salary” was not taxable u/s 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation as it stood at the relevant time?” Period Salary” was not taxable u/s 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation as it stood at the relevant time?”
(2) “Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that free boarding facility provided by the employer on the rig is not a perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii)?” boarding facility provided by the employer on the rig is not a perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii)?”
ANSWER:
In view of our above judgment, we answer the first question in the 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.
(M.M. Ghildiyal, J.)
(S.H. Kapadia, C.J.)
Gur