In an important judgment delivered on November 17, 2005 in Sedco Forex International Drill, Inc v CIT, the Supreme Court has, reversing the judgment of the Uttaranchal Pradesh High Court, held that the salaries paid outside India (i.e., in the United Kingdom) by the Appellant-taxpayer to its employees (who were tax residents of the United Kingdom) in respect of periods of "field break(s)" undertaken outside India (i.e., in the United Kingdom) (which employees had, prior to undergoing such "field break(s)", rendered services in India under a wet lease of oil rigs by the Appellant-taxpayer to the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, India) were not chargeable to Indian income-tax in the hands of the concerned employees under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), inasmuch as such salaries were not paid for "service rendered in India".

2.           The Supreme Court held that the first clause in the contracts entered into by the Appellant-taxpayer with the concerned employees relating to the payment of salaries for services to be rendered in India was distinct from the second clause relating to the payment of salaries for the "field break(s)". While the first clause clearly fell within the extended meaning given to the words "earned in India" in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, the second clause did not; accordingly, since the phrase "earned in India" is part of the statutory fiction created by Section 9(1)(ii), "(t)here is no question of introducing a further fiction by extending the Explanation" (i.e., the Explanation to that Section as such Explanation stood prior to its amendment with effect from April 1, 2000) "to include whatever has a possible nexus with service in India.". (emphases supplied)

3.           Although the High Court had not referred to the 2000 amendment to the Explanation aforesaid, the Supreme Court proceeded to deal with the question of whether such Explanation was clarificatory in nature and hence applicable with retrospective effect from the date on which the provision [Section 9(1)(ii)] to which it was an Explanation came into force, since that question was raised by the Respondent-Revenue. The Court ruled against the Revenue on this issue by holding that "(w)hen the Explanation seeks to give an artificial meaning (to the phrase) 'earned in India' and bring about a change effectively in the existing law and in addition is stated to come into force with effect from a future date, there is no principle of interpretation which would justify reading the Explanation as operating retrospectively.". (emphasis supplied)