Assessees win on perks & interest deletion but lose on double taxation & foreign salary taxability.

The Tribunal partially ruled in favor of the assessees by allowing the deletion of the perquisite value of food and interest under section 234B. However, the Tribunal rejected the grounds related to relief under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (AADT) and the taxability of salary received outside India, citing previous judgments and decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to relief under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (AADT).
2. Taxability of salary received outside India.
3. Estimation of perquisite value of food provided free of cost.
4. Deletion of interest levied under section 234B of the Income-tax Act.
5. Additional ground of appeal related to off period salary.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Relief under AADT:
The first ground of appeal was that the assessees were not entitled to any relief under the relevant Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (AADT). The Tribunal noted that the issue of relief under AADT had been previously considered in several cases and decided against the assessees. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT v. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. [2003] 264 ITR 320 (Uttaranchal), which held that the salary received by the assessees was taxable in India. The Tribunal also referred to various previous decisions where it was held that the remuneration paid to the assessees had been deducted in computing the profits of Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. (SFDI), and thus, the assessees did not fulfill the conditions for relief under AADT.

2. Taxability of Salary Received Outside India:
The second ground was that the salary received outside India by the assessees was taxable in India on the basis that it was deemed to have been earned in India. The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal in CIT v. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. [2003] 264 ITR 320 (Uttaranchal), which held that off-period salary is taxable in India under section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal decided this ground against the assessees.

3. Estimation of Perquisite Value of Food Provided Free of Cost:
The third ground was regarding the perquisite value of food provided free of cost to the assessees and its taxability. The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the issue was covered in favor of the assessees by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal. Following this judgment, the Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the assessees and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4. Deletion of Interest Levied under Section 234B:
The fourth ground was related to the interest levied under section 234B of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal noted that this issue was also covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal. Following the judgment, the Tribunal directed the deletion of interest under section 234B in all the appeals.

5. Additional Ground of Appeal Related to Off Period Salary:
The additional ground of appeal was connected with the first ground regarding relief under AADT and sought similar relief in respect of off-period salary. The Tribunal noted that the additional ground was dependent on the decision regarding the first ground of appeal. The Tribunal reiterated that the issue of relief under AADT had been previously considered and decided against the assessees. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the additional ground of appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering all the issues and following the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal and previous decisions of the Tribunal, decided the appeals partly in favor of the assessees by allowing the deletion of the perquisite value of food and interest under section 234B, but rejected the grounds related to relief under AADT and taxability of salary received outside India.

---