TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 6(1), the continental shelf of India extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3 where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance. Section 6(2) describes sovereign rights of India in respect of its continental shelf. Section 6(6) enables the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette to extend, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment for the time being in force in India or any part thereof to the continental shelf or any part thereof. Section 7(1) describes the exclusive economic zone of India as an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters and the limit of such zone is 200 nautical miles from the baseline referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3. Under section 7(7), the Central Government may, by a notification in the Official Gazette, extend, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment for the time being in force in India or any part thereof to the exclusive economic zone or any part thereof. Under a notification bearing G.S.R. No. 304(E) dated March 31, 1983, issued in exercise of the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged during the period April 1, 1982, to March 31, 1983, and who rendered services beyond 12 nautical miles from the Indian shore. This revised figure is also an estimated figure. There is admittedly no order of assessment against the petitioner. The ONGC (respondent No. 6), which is a public sector undertaking, has deposited with respondents Nos. 1 to 5 this sum of Rs. 82,59,862 due and payable by ONGC to M/s. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 7) without demur. Although the ONGC (respondent No. 6 herein) has been served, it has not cared to appear at the hearing of the petition or to file any return. The first question which requires determination is whether by virtue of the notification which came into effect from April 1, 1983, the income which has accrued within the area of continental shelf or economic zone, but beyond the territorial waters of India, in the accounting year April 1, 1982, to March 31, 1983, is subject to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The relevant assessment year for this period is undoubtedly the assessment year 1983-84 (April 1, 1983, to March 31, 1984) when the Income-tax Act was applicable. But, income-tax is actually levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh the place of accrual ceased to be part of British India in the year of assessment. This was also a case of income arising in Burma in the accounting year 1936-37. In the case of Sarupchand and Hukumchand v. Union of India [1953] 23 ITR 382, a Full Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court was required to consider the liability under the Indian Income-tax Act of income accruing to a resident of a Part B State from April 1, 1949, to March 31, 1950. The Full Bench held that though Madhya Bharat was not taxable territory as respects any period prior to April 1, 1950, it was deemed to be such under the express provision of section 2(14A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 . Hence, tax was payable under the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of income accruing during the previous accounting year. In the case of Union of India v. Madan Gopal Kabra [1954] 25 ITR 58, the Supreme Court was required to consider an assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, of income arising in a Part B. State in the accounting year ending on March 31, 1950. The Supreme Court relied upon sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of the proviso to section 2(14A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, under which the wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Bombay High Area located off the West Coast of India. The Bombay High Field is located in the Arabian sea water 100 miles (160 km.) West-Eastern, West-North/West of Bombay with a water depth ranging from approximately 184-276 feet (56-84 m.)." The employees of the petitioner who rendered services in the Bombay High Area did their work beyond 12 nautical miles from the Indian coastline. The contention of Mr. Jetly is, therefore, baseless. It should be noted that in respect of project work which is done by the petitioner on-shore or within 12 nautical miles, the petitioner has deducted income-tax from the salaries of its employees and has filed the relevant returns. These are not the subject-matter of this petition. The sixth respondent, the ONGC, has been called upon to deposit sum of over Rs. 82 lakhs due and payable by it to the seventh respondent, Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., in respect of the alleged tax dues of the petitioner. Under section 226(3), the Income-tax Officer can require by a notice in writing only such persons from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
