| COURT: | Uttarakhand High Court |
| CORAM: | Alok Singh J, Ramesh Ranganathan CJ, Sudhanshu Dhulia J |
| SECTION(S): | 44BB |
| GENRE: | International Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | service-tax, turnover |
| COUNSEL: | Manish Kant, P. R. Mullick, Porus Kaka, Shailesh Kumar |
| DATE: | April 12, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | April 23, 2019 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2004-05 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 44BB: Amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by ONGC (service recipient), representing service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 44BB of the Act (Mitchell Drilling International 380 ITR 130 (Del), CBDT Circular No. 4/2008 dt 28.04.2008 & Circular No. 1/2014 dt 13.01.2014 followed) | |
Except to state that the said judgment needs re-consideration, no justifiable cause has been shown as to why this Court should take a view different from that of the Delhi High Court, in Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd.48, more so when the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has taken a view similar to that of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd.2. As the revenue has not been able to show just cause for this Court to take a different view, we see no reason to differ with the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court that reimbursement of service tax is not an amount paid to the assessee on account of providing services and facilities in connection with the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils in India.
Recent Comments