Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International

Dy.Director of Income Tax,Circle-3(2),International Taxation,New Delhi. Vs Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd., C/o Nangai & Co., Suit 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi.
January, 12th 2015
ITA No.874/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

              IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                   DELHI BENCHES `E' NEW DELHI

       BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
                         AND
       SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      ITA NO. 874/DEL/2013
                      ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10

Dy.Director of Income Tax,      vsMitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd.,
Circle-3(2),                      C/o Nangai & Co.,
International Taxation,           Suit 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola,
New Delhi.                        New Delhi.
                                  (PAN: AADCM9904H)
(Appellant)                       (Respondent)
            Appellant by: Shri Amit Arora CA, Suraj Nangia CA
         Respondent by: Shri Vivek Kumar, Sr. DR

                           O R D E R

PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M.

       This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-

XXIX, New Delhi dated 10.12.2012 in Appeal No. 118/11-12 for AY 2009-10.


2.     The sole ground raised by the revenue reads as under:-


               "1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
        Ld. CTT (A) has erred in holding that service tax being a
        statutory liability, would not involve any element of service in
        terms of section 44BB and accordingly, the same could not be
        included in the total receipts for determining the presumptive
        income ignoring thereby provisions of section 44BB of the Act
        which provides for computation of the taxable income at a
        fixed percentage of the 'gross receipts' and also ignoring the


                                                                                1
ITA No.874/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

        fact the section 44BB being beneficial provision in itself, it
        does not envisage any further concessions to the assessee."
3.     Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee

company has been incorporated in Australia and is engaged in the business of

providing equipment on hiring and manpower etc. for exploration and

production of mineral oil and natural gas. During the year under appeal, the

assessee earned gross receipt of Rs. 21,05,89,855 from various clients and

offered a total income of Rs.2,12,90,261 in its return of income in terms of

provisions contained in section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO

held that the assessee is eligible to be assessed under the said section in so far as

the receipts from M/s Arrow Energy, M/s Essar Oil Limited, M/s Reliance

Industries Limited, M/s Great Eastern Energy Pty. Limited are concerned. The

AO held that an amount of Rs.2,57.20,779 /- collected as service tax by the

assessee from its customer is to be added to its gross receipts to be taxed u/s

44BB of the Act and hence, the AO assessed the taxable income of the assessee

at Rs.2,38,62,338/-.





4.     The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which was

allowed by passing the impugned order. Now, the aggrieved revenue is before

this Tribunal with the sole ground as reproduced hereinabove.


5.     We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the

relevant material placed on record, inter alia, impugned order and the

assessment order.      At the outset, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee
                                                                                   2
ITA No.874/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

submitted a copy of the decision of ITAT "E" Bench, New Delhi in assessee's

own case i.e. ITA No. 698/Del/2012 for AY 2008-09 order dated 31.8.2012 and

submitted that the CIT(A) has granted relief for the assessee for AY 2009-10 by

following the order of the Tribunal (supra). Ld. DR fairly accepted that ITAT

"E" Bench, New Delhi dismissing the appeal of the revenue has upheld the

order of the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09.


6.     On careful consideration of above submissions and perusal of the order of

the Tribunal for AY 2008-09 dated 31.8.2012 in assessee's own case in ITA

No.689/D/2012 (supra), we note that the Tribunal upheld the order of the

CIT(A) with following observations and conclusion:-

               "8. We have heard both the sides, considered the
        material on record and find that similar issue arose before `G'
        Bench of the tribunal in the case of Sedco Forex International
        Drilling Inc. vs. Addl. DIT (International Taxation) in ITA
        No.5284/Del./2011, has decided the issue in favour of the
        assessee and relevant portion of the decision, which has been
        dealt with by the tribunal in its order as under:
               4. ..............Regarding reimbursement of service tax,
        the ld. AR pointed out that though the ITAT Delhi Bench in
        their decision in the case of DIT (International Taxation) Vs.
        Technip Offshore Contracting BV,29 SOT 33(Delhi) concluded
        that service tax collected by the assessee being directly in
        connection with services or facilities or supply specified u/s
        44BB of the Act provided by the assessee to ONGC, have to be
        included in the total receipts for the purpose of determination
        of presumptive profit u/s 44BB, subsequently, Hon'ble
        Uttarakhand High Court decision dated 24th July, 2009 in the
        case of DIT & Anr. Vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. ,317
        ITR 156(Uttarakhand) concluded that reimbursement of
        custom duty paid by the assessee could not form part of
        amount for the purpose of deemed profits u/s 44BB unlike the
                                                                               3
ITA No.874/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

        other amounts received towards reimbursement. Following the
        view in this decision, Mumbai Bench in their decision dated
        20.4.2011 in I.T.A.no.8845/Mum/2010 in the case of Islamic
        Republic of Iran Shipping Lines Vs. DCIT,2011-TOII-77-
        MUM-INTL, held that service tax being a statutory liability,
        would not involve any element of profit and a service provider
        having collected the amount on behalf of the Government,
        accordingly, the same could not be included in the total
        receipts for determining the presumptive income, the ld. AR
        added. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings of
        the AO.
        5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts
        of the case as alsothe aforesaid decisions relied upon by the
        ld. AR. We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in their
        aforesaid decision Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. (supra)
        while adjudicating an identical issue relating to
        reimbursement of freight & transport charges in respect of
        equipment, concluded as under:-
                "5. Sec. 44BB provides that the deemed profits and
        gains under subs.(1) shall be @ 10 per cent of the aggregate
        amount specified in sub-s.(2). We proceed to analyze sub-s.
        (2). Clause (a) of sub-s. (2) refers to the amounts, (A) paid to
        the assessee (whether in or out of India) on account of the
        provision of services and facilities in connection with, or
        supply of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in
        the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral
        oils in India, and (B) payable to the assessee (whether in or
        out of India) on account of the provision of services and
        facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery
        on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or
        extraction or production of, mineral oils in India. Clause (b) of
        sub-s. (2) refers to the amounts, (A) received by assessee in
        India on account of the provision of services and facilities in
        connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire
        used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or
        production of, mineral oils outside India, and (B) deemed to be
        received by the assessee in India on account of the provision of
        services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant
        and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting
        for, or extraction or production of mineral oils outside India.


                                                                            4
ITA No.874/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

        6. Thus, it is clear from the perusal of s. 44BB that all the
        amounts either paid or payable (whether in India or outside
        India) or received or deemed to be received (whether in India
        or outside India) are mutually inclusive. This amount is the
        basis of determination of deemed profits and gains of the
        assessee @ 10 per cent. Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal
        fell into error in not appreciating the difference between the
        amount and the income. Amount paid or received refers to the
        total payment to the assessee or payable to the assessee or
        deemed to be received by the assessee, whereas income has
        been defined under s.2(24) of the IT Act and s. 5 and s. 9 deal
        with the income and accrued income and deemed income. Sec.
        4 is the charging section of the IT Act and definition as well as
        the incomes referred in ss. 5 and 9 are for the purpose of
        imposing the income-tax under s. 143 (3). Sec.44BB is a
        complete code in itself. It provides by a legal fiction to be the
        profits and gains of the non-resident assessee engaged in the
        business of oil exploration @ 10 per cent of the aggregate
        amount specified in sub-s. (2). It is not in dispute that the
        amount has been received by the assessee company. Therefore,
        the AO added the said amount which was received by the non-
        resident company rendering services as per provisions of s.
        44BB to the ONGC and imposed the income-tax thereon.
        5.1 In the light of view taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional
        High Court in their aforesaid decision, especially when the ld.
        AR accepted the position that the issue is squarely covered by
        the aforesaid decision while no other contrary decision was
        brought to our notice nor the ld. AR placed any material
        before us, controverting the aforesaid findings of the DRP and
        the AO, we have no hesitation in upholding the findings of the
        AO in the light of directions of the DRP in para 3.2 of their
        order dated 2nd September, 2011 in respect of reimbursement
        of amount on account of fuel recharge. In view thereof, ground
        no. 2 in the appeal is dismissed.
        6. As regards reimbursement of amount in respect of service
        tax, as pointed out by the ld. AR, the ITAT Delhi Bench in their
        decision in Technip Offshore Contracting BV(supra)
        concluded that service tax collected by the assessee being
        directly in connection with services or facilities or supply
        specified u/s 44BB of the Act provided by the assessee to
        ONGC, have to be included in the total receipts for the

                                                                            5
ITA No.874/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

        purpose of determination of presumptive profit u/s 44BB of the
        Act. It is well established that section 44BB of the Act is a
        special provision, treating 10 per cent of the aggregate
        amount specified in sub-s. (2) of s.44BB as deemed profits and
        gains of such non-resident assessee who is engaged in the
        business of providing services or facilities in connection with,
        or supplying plant and machinery on higher used, or to be
        used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of,
        mineral oils. The amount referred in sub-s.(2) of s. 44BB are
        the amounts (a) paid to the assessee (whether in or out of
        India) on account of the provision of services and facilities in
        connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on higher
        used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or
        production of, mineral oils in India, (b) payable to the
        assessee (whether in or out of India) on account of the
        provision of services and facilities in connection with, or
        supply of plant and machinery on higher used, or to be used,
        in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral
        oils in India, (c) received by the assessee in India on account
        of the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or
        supply of plant and machinery on higher used, or to be used,
        in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral
        oils outside India and (d) deemed to be received by the
        assessee in India on account of the provision of services and
        facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery
        on higher used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or
        extraction or production of, mineral oils outside India. The
        service tax is a statutory liability like custom duty. Hon'ble
        Uttarakhand High Court in their decision in Schlumberger
        Asia Services Ltd.(supra) concluded that reimbursement of
        custom duty paid by the assessee could not form part of
        amount for the purpose of deemed profits u/s 44BB unlike the
        other amounts received towards reimbursement. Following the
        view in this decision, Mumbai Bench in their decision in
        Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines(supra)held that
        service tax being a statutory liability, would not involve any
        element of profit and accordingly, the same could not be
        included in the total receipts for determining the presumptive
        income. In the light of view taken by the Mumbai Bench,
        especially when the ld. DR did not place any material before
        us, controverting the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) so as
        to enable us to take a different view in the matter nor brought
        to our notice any contrary decision, we are of the opinion that
                                                                             6
ITA No.874/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

        service tax paid by the assessee could not form part of amount
        for the purpose of deemed profits u/s 44BB unlike the other
        amounts received towards reimbursement............."
        9. Since this issue is covered by earlier decision of ITAT, `G'
        Bench, Delhi, which is on similar point and no contrary or any
        higher courts' precedent has been cited, therefore, while
        following the said decision, we uphold the order of Ld.CIT(A)
        and dismiss the present appeal."
7.     From operative part of the impugned order of the CIT(A) for AY 2009-

10, we observe that the CIT(A) has granted relief for the assessee with

following determination:-





              "Determination:
              4.0 The appellant has submitted that service tax
        collected by the appellant on and for behalf of central
        government by itself can not be said to have been received in
        return of providing any services or facilities in terms of section
        44BB of the Act. The appellant has further contended that
        similar issue was involved in AY 2008-09 and then CIT(A) has
        decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The said order of
        CIT(A) has since been confirmed by Hon'ble IT AT Delhi vide
        order dated 31-08-2012 in ITA No. 698?DeI/2012. I have gone
        through said appellate orders for AY. 2008-09. Since the issue
        involved is the same as in AY 2008-09, I find no reason to take
        a different view. In view of above, 1 hold that service tax is not
        to be included in gross receipts for the purposes of computing
        taxable income u/s 44BB of the Act. The ground of appeal is
        accordingly allowed."
8.     In view of above, we are inclined to hold that the CIT(A) following the

rule of consistency was justified in granting relief for the assessee by following

the order of the Tribunal dated 31.8.2012 (supra) for AY 2008-09 as service tax

collected by the appellant for and on behalf of the central government by itself

cannot be said to have been received in return of providing any services or

                                                                                7
ITA No.874/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

facilities in terms of section 44BB of the Act. We are unable to see any valid

reason to take a different view on the same issue which is squarely covered in

favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal dated 31.8.2012 (supra) in

assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 which is on similar point and the

department has not shown any contrary view of any Hon'ble higher court.

Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal dated 31.8.2012, we

are inclined to hold that the CIT(A) granted relief for the assessee by rightly

following the rule of consistency and we are unable to see any ambiguity,

perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, sole ground of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed.


9.        In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.


          Order pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2015.

          Sd/-                                             Sd/-

(G.D. AGRAWAL)                                   (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
VICE PRESIDENT                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 09th JANUARY 2015
`GS'
Copy forwarded to:-

     1.   Appellant
     2.   Respondent
     3.   C.I.T.(A)
     4.   C.I.T. 5. DR
                                                         By Order

                                                     Asstt. Registrar


                                                                               8

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions