Home ›

Search Results For: 44BB

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 13, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 25, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 44DA prevails over s. 44BB after the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Income from provision of services through high end customized software does not constitute "Fees For Technical Services" u/s 9(1)(vii) as the definition excludes income from "mining or like project". The Q whether income from composite software and maintenance services constitutes "royalty" for purposes of s. 44DA would have to be decided from the nature of services. The assessee is eligible to take benefit of the definition of 'royalty' as per the DTAA for the purpose of applicability of s. 44DA

If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in light of what is discussed above, the next logical question that arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner can claim the benefit of Section 44BB. The answer to this question is contingent on factual determination, as the legal position has changed from April 01, 2011. It is now required to be considered whether the receipts in the hands of the assessee qualify to be “royalty” or not? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then in that event, the relevant provision would now be 44DA(1).

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
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.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: October 30, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 1, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 44BB: Amounts received as “mobilisation fee” on account of provision of services and facilities in connection with the extraction etc. of mineral oil in India attracts s. 44BB and have to be assessed as business profits. S. 44BB has to be read in conjunction with ss. 5 and 9 of the Act. Ss. 5 and 9 cannot be read in isolation. The argument that the mobilisation fee is “reimbursement of expenses” and so not assessable as income is not acceptable because it is a fixed amount paid which may be less or more than the expenses incurred. Incurring of expenses, therefore, would be immaterial. Also, the contract was indivisible

Section 44BB starts with non-obstante clause, and the formula contained therein for computation of income is to be applied irrespective of the provisions of Sections 28 to 41 and Sections 43 and 43A of the Act. It is not in dispute that assessees were assessed under the said provision which is applicable in the instant case. For assessment under this provision, a sum equal to 10% of the aggregate of the amounts specified in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head ‘profits and gains of the business or profession’. Sub-section (2) mentions two kinds of amounts which shall be deemed as profits and gains of the business chargeable to tax in India. Sub-clause (a) thereof relates to amount paid or payable to the assessee or any person on his behalf on account of 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. Thus, all amounts pertaining to the aforesaid activity which are received on account of provisions of services and facilities in connection with the said facility are treated as profits and gains of the business.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9/ 44BB: Income received by a non-resident under a time charter agreement accrues and arises in india even when the vessel and crew are outside the territorial waters of India. Such income is assessable on a presumptive basis u/s 44BB

Gross payments are intricately linked to the services/works rendered by the assessee and arise due to the execution of contract in India, under the terms and conditions of the contract between the assessee and Siem Offshore Inc. The vessel was hired by the contract and it was only for this purpose that the vessel and the crew were involved in the said contract. Thus, it is improper on the part of the assessee to offer to tax its revenues only on a pro-rata basis based upon the number of days the vessel was stationed within 200 nautical miles from the Indian shore line. As the contract for the provision of crew was a continuing contract, it cannot be said that revenues were not earned for the period the vessel was out of the territorial waters of India. Hence, the entire contract amount is to be considered for the purpose of calculating the gross receipts and all receipts received against the execution of the contract would come under the purview of gross receipts. Thus, gross amounts for the months of November 2007, December 2007 and January 2008 are to be included in the gross receipts

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 172/ 195: Shipping companies assessed u/s 172 are not subject to TDS obligations u/s 195

To our mind, the Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Orient (Goa) Pvt. Ltd 325 ITR 554 seen in this light does not, with greatest respect, take into account the scheme and setting as understood above. There need not be apprehension because there is no escape from the levy and recovery of tax. The tax has to be levied and collected. The ship cannot leave the port or if allowed to leave any port in India, it must either pay or make arrangement to pay the tax. Hence, the apprehension of avoidance or evasion both are taken care of by the legislature. That is how advisedly the legislature cast the obligation to deduct tax at source on the person responsible to make payment to a non-resident in shipping business

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 44BB: Service tax & Customs duty collected by assessee from clients is not includible in gross receipt while computing income u/s 44BB

The Court concurs with the decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand in DIT v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd (2009) 317 ITR 156 which held that the reimbursement received by the Assessee of the customs duty paid on equipment imported by it for rendering services would not form part of the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44 BB of the Act. The Court accordingly holds that for the purposes of computing the ‘presumptive income’ of the assessee for the purposes of Section 44 BB of the Act, the service tax collected by the Assessee on the amount paid by it for rendering services is not to be included in the gross receipts in terms of Section 44 BB (2) read with Section 44 BB (1). The service tax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it. The Assessee is only collecting the service tax for passing it on to the government

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 4, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1985-86
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 44BB vs. 9(1)(vii)/44D: The "pith and substance" test has to be applied to determine the dominant purpose of each agreement. If the dominant purpose is mining, the income is assessable only u/s 44BB and not as "fees for technical services" u/s 9(1)(vii) & 44D

The pith and substance of each of the contracts/agreements is inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil. The dominant purpose of each of such agreement is for prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils though there may be certain ancillary works contemplated thereunder. If that be so, we will have no hesitation in holding that the payments made by ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the said contracts is more appropriately assessable under the provisions of Section 44BB and not Section 44D of the Act

Read more ›