DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. ENVENTURE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1742/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 April 2019AY 2011-124 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 the compensation received for the loss of equipment was a capital receipt and not taxable as revenue under Section 44BB. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court dismissing the Revenue's SLP.

What were the facts?

The assessee received compensation for loss of equipment in a hole. The Revenue argued this compensation was taxable under Section 44BB, while the CIT(A) held it was a capital receipt and not taxable. The Revenue's appeal was based on the argument that a similar High Court decision had not attained finality.

What were the issues?

Whether compensation received for loss of equipment in a hole is a taxable revenue receipt under Section 44BB, or a capital receipt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “E” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI O.P. KANT

Hearing: 25.03.2019Pronounced: 02.04.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1742/Del./2016 Assessment Year 2011-2012 M/s. Enventure Global DCIT (International Technologies C/o. Nangia & vs Taxation), Circle-1, Aayakar Co., 3rd Floor, NCR Plaza, Bhawan, 13A-Subhash New Cantt. Road, Dehradun. Road, Dehradun. PAN AABCE2647K (Appellant (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Pranita M. Biswal, CIT-D.R. For Assessee : Shri Amit Arora, C.A. And Shri Vishal Mishra, C.A. Date of Hearing : 25.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 02.04.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Noida, Dated 29.01.2016, for the A.Y. 2011-2012, on the following ground :

(i) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the compensation received on account

2 ITA.No.1742/Del./2016 M/s. Enventure Global Technologies Dehradun. of loss of equipment in hole is not includible in the taxable receipts of the assessee under section 44BB of the Act when the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Uttarakhand at Nainital (ITA No. 58 of 2006) on a similar issue involving ONGC and different assessee, Schlumberger Asia Services Limited has not attained finality as the department has filed a SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court.”

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted in his findings that similar issue involved in the case of ONGC, a different assessee M/s. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., the jurisdictional High Court held that “compensation for destruction and loss of capital asset which were utilised on a rig owned by ONGC was capital receipt and not taxable as revenue receipt under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. The Ld. CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the compensation received on account of loss of equipment in hole is not includable in the taxable receipts of the assessee under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3 ITA.No.1742/Del./2016 M/s. Enventure Global Technologies Dehradun.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of CIT, Dehradun vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., New Delhi, have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP of the Revenue vide Order dated 05.07.2013. Copy of the Judgment of Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court and Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are filed on record.

4.

The only point raised by the Revenue in Departmental Appeal is that the decision in the case of M/s. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., has not attained finality. Since the SLP of the Department in this case have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the issue stand concluded in favour of the assessee. Departmental Appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 44BB

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44BB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →