Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (6) TMI 924

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Officer which he failed to do so. Therefore, in light of the decision of the Tribunal which is having identical facts in the present year as well, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Computation of profits - whether Service Tax would not form part of gross receipts for the purpose of computation of profits under the presumptive provisions u/s 44BB ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in MITCHELL DRILLING INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [ 2015 (10) TMI 259 - DELHI HIGH COURT] purpose of Section 44BB, the service tax collected by the Assessee on the amount paid to it for rendering services is not to be included in the gross receipts in terms of Section 44BB(2) read with Section 44BB(1). Besides that the CIT(A) also held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee due to the cases of M/s Sedco Forex [ 2012 (7) TMI 250 - ITAT, DELHI] allowed this ground with direction to exclude service tax from the purview of computation of income u/s 44BB. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Liability to pay interest u/s 234B - HELD THAT:- As decided in MAERSK CO. LTD. [ 2011 (4) TMI 886 - UTTARKHAND HIGH COURT] stage for making payment of tax could only arise at the sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... receipts for the propose of computation of profits under the presumptive provisions of u/s 44BB of the Act. 2.1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 44BB are a self-contained code providing for computation of profits at a fixed percentage of gross receipts of the assessee and all the deductions and exclusions from income are deemed to have been allowed to the assessee. 2.2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that once the receipts are held as assessable u/s 4488 of the Act which provides for computation of profits on gross basis, there is no scope for computing or recomputing the profits by excluding any element of the receipts from the total turnover as the same would amount to defeating the very purpose of providing for a scheme of simpler mode of computation of profits u/s 44BB of the Act and obviating the need for accounting for individual receipts and payments etc. 2.3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of DDIT v/s Technip Offshore Contracting, [29 SOT 33 Del] and the Ruling of Hon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wed by 1TAT Delhi in the order dated 13.06.2014 in the case of Nortel Network India International Inc [ITA No. 4766/DEL/20I 1] 4. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee company is a non resident company incorporated under the law of Norway. The assessee company entered into the contract with Gujrat State Petroleum Ltd. vide contract dated 12/12/2007 for off shore supply vessel services required for off shore drilling. Return of income was filed by the assessee electronically on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of ₹ 2,72,78,810/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 21/9/2011. Further, notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire dated 4/4/2012 was issued by the Assessing Officer. Further, notice u/s 142(1) dated 7/11/2012 was issued and another notice along with questionnaire dated 30/11/2012 was issued. The CA and AR of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and submitted written replies. A draft assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 8. As regards to Ground No. 2, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that Service Tax would not form part of gross receipts for the purpose of computation of profits under the presumptive provisions u/s 44BB of the Act. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of Section 44BB are a self-contained code providing for computation of profits at a fixed percentage of gross receipts of the assessee and all the deductions and exclusions from income are deemed to have been allowed to the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that once the receipts are held as assessable u/s 44BB of the Act which provides for computation of profits on gross basis, there is no scope for computing or re-computing the profits by excluding any element of the receipts from the total turnover as the same would amount to defeating the very purpose of providing for a scheme of simpler mode of computation of profits u/s 44BB of the Act and obviating the need for accounting for individual receipts and payments etc. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Tribunal in case of DDIT vs. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee is not liable to pay interest u/s 234B of the Act and in observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision in case of M/s Maersk 334 ITR 79, UK. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT (IT) vs. Alcatel Lucent USA, Inc. 264 CTR 240 (Del.): 223 Taxman 176. 12. The Ld. AR submitted that CIT (A) rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court in case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd. 334 ITR 79. 13. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court in case of Maersk Co. Ltd. (supra) held as under: 24. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the assessee was not laible to pay advance tax under section 208 of the Act inasmuch as the tax at source was required to be deducted by the person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head Salaries at the time of payment under section 192 of the Act. The assessee only became liable to pay the tax directly under section 191 of the Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates