DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6260/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2018AY 2012-133 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own precedent from the preceding assessment year. The service tax amount was not to be included in the gross revenue for the purpose of Section 44BB.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13. The core issue was whether service tax should be included in the assessee's gross revenue under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct computation of gross revenue under Section 44BB, specifically whether service tax collected by the assessee should be included.

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 : “C” : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI

For Respondent: DR (I.T.)
Hearing: 04.06.2018Pronounced: 05.06.2018

ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 27.9.2016 in relation to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal through various grounds is against the direction of the learned CIT(A) that the amount of service tax should not Section 44BB of the Act.

3.

We have considered the rival contention and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the similar issue came up for hearing before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year. Vide order dated 8.7.2016, the Tribunal in has decided this issue in assessee’s favour. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal are similar to those of the preceding year. Since the learned CIT(A) has taken a view which accords with the one taken by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year, we uphold the same.

4.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 05th June, 2018.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- [BEENA A. PILLAI] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated, 05th June, 2018. SH Copy forwarded to: 2

1.

Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.

Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 4.6.2018 PS 2. Draft placed before author 4.6.2018 PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. *

More judgments on Section 44BB

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44BB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →