WAVEFIELD INSEIS ASA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that mobilization/demobilization charges and reimbursement charges are to be included in gross receipts for the purpose of Section 44BB. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling in a similar case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Wavefield Inseis ASA, received fees for mobilization/demobilization of a rig and reimbursement of expenses from ONGC. The Assessing Officer included these amounts in the gross receipts under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether mobilization/demobilization charges and reimbursement of expenses are includible in gross receipts under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sedco Forex International Inc. v. CIT29 citing87 Taxmann.com 29 · 2017 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Assessing Officer dated 28.12.2015 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2011-12 raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld AO/DRP has erred on facts and in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 24296868/- and Rs. 21381753/- received by the appellant towards fee for mobilization and demobilization of the rig respectively outside India, is to be included in the gross receipts u/s 44BB of the Act without appreciating that the said amount does not accrue or arise to the appellant in India in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section 9 of the Act.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld AO/DRP has erred on facts and in law in holding that sum of Rs. 12901399/- received by the appellant from ONGC as reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by the appellant on their behalf, is to be included in the gross receipts u/s 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
More judgments on Section 44BB
- DCIT, Jaipur vs Oil India Ltd., AssamITA 1534/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- Dolphin Drilling Limited, Dehradun vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (…ITA 52/DDN/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Dolphin Drilling Ltd, Noida vs ACIT, International Taxation, Circle- 2…ITA 5492/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2026AY 2015-16
- Aban Singapore Pte Ltd, Chennai vs DCIT Intl Tax 1(1), ChennaiITTPA 29/CHNY/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2026AY 2023-24
- Baker Hughes Energy Technology Uk Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 2081/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed27 May 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026