DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHELF DRILLING TRIDENT XII LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2538/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 April 2022AY 2015-162 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that service tax should be excluded from the amount paid or payable for determining presumptive profit under Section 44BB. This decision was based on multiple High Court rulings on similar matters.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer appealed a CIT(A) order concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The core issue was whether service tax should be excluded when determining presumptive profit under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act for services related to mineral oil extraction.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the correct computation of presumptive income under Section 44BB, specifically whether service tax should be included in the turnover for this calculation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44BB,Section 143(3),Section 144C(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

1.

By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned CIT(A)-58, Mumbai in the matter of assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Grievance raised by the Assessing Officer is as follows: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in excluding service tax from the amount paid or payable to, received or receivable by the assessee 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 for the purpose of determining presumptive profit u/s.44BB of the Act?”

Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 3 3. As learned representatives fairly agree, the issue in the appeal is covered, in favour of the assessee, by several decisions of Hon’ble High Courts, including in the cases of DIT Vs Mitchell Drilling International Pvt Ltd [(2015) 62 taxmann.24 (Del)], DIT Vs Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd [(2019) 104 taxmann.353 (Uttarakhand FB)] and PCIT Vs Boskalis International- Dredging International [24 ITXA 55-17 (Bom)]. The conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A), which are in harmony with the views so expressed by Hon’ble Courts above- including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cannot be faulted.

4.

We, therefore, see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the several decisions of Hon’ble High Courts. Respectfully following the same, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 7th day of April, 2022.

More judgments on Section 44BB

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44BB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →