WAVEFIELD INSEIS ASA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 971/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 November 2017AY 2011-122 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

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?

Section 44BB,Section 5(2),Section 9

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, CA
For Respondent: Shri GK Dhall, CIT DR
Hearing: 27/11/2017Pronounced: 27/11/2017

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

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44BB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →