Uttarakhand High Court
ITA/533/2001 of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEHRADUN and ORS Vs READING and BATES EXPLORATION CO. on 3 November 2003
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 533 of 2001 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Dehradun. ………. Appellants Vers M/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co. As agent of Mr. S. Shankanun, S.V. Road, Viley
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
Income Tax Appeal No. 533 of 2001
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 VersM/s Reading & Bates Exploration Co. As agent of Mr. S. Shankanun, S.V. Road, Viley Parely, Bombay. ………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, Meerut & another V/s SEDCO Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd.
The questions raised before us 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 food, beverage and boarding on the rig was not a perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii)?” food, beverage and boarding on the rig was not a perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii)?”
(3) “Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting interest levied on the assessee u/s 234B?”
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 other two questions 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