9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the order dated March 21, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D", New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 2887/DEL/2000 for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the return of income was filed by a non-resident company M/s B. J. Services Co. Middle East, disclosing Rs. 3,27,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 66,17,495 out of Rs.69,45,264 as Rs. 66,17,495 was received as cost of materials, etc., as the actual reimbursement of expenses of such materials incurred by the assessee in the execution of the contract with the ONGC and these reimbursements were on actual basis and were not in any way on a fixed percentage bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reimbursement on account of supply of spare parts cannot be included in the contract receipts for computing taxable profit under section 44BB ?" 8. It is the fact that the amount of Rs. 69,45,264 was received by the assessee-non-resident company for supply of materials which included Rs. 3,27,770 on account of handling charges. 9. Sub-section (1) of section 44BB specifically provides that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee on account of supply of spare parts is squarely covered under section 44BB. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was right in calculating the 10 per cent. of the total amount of Rs. 69,45,264, which was received by the assessee-non-resident company from the ONGC. The claim of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 66,17,495 could not be included for the purpose of calculating the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
