Commissioner Of Income Tax ( international Taxation-3) vs. B.j. Services Company Middle East Ltd
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were already answered by a Full Bench decision in a similar case. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the ITAT's decision that service tax/VAT receipts were not includible in gross revenue for Section 44BB computation. The Revenue argued that Section 44BB is a self-contained code and sales tax collected forms part of business receipts.
What were the issues?
Whether service tax/VAT receipts are includible in gross revenue for Section 44BB computation, and if Section 44BB is a self-contained code for presumptive taxation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Durga Prasad More1,579 citing82 ITR 542 · 1971 · SC
- Director of Income-tax International Taxation v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd.9 citing104 Taxmann.com 353 · 2019 · HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 08 of 2017
26TH MARCH, 2021
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation-3)
…Appellant
and
B.J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. …………Respondent
Counsel for the appellant
: Mr. Hari Mohan
Bhatia, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. P. R. Mullick,
learned counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following substantial questions of law are raised in the present appeal:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT
has erred in holding that receipts on account of
service tax/VAT are not includible in gross
revenue of the assessee for the purpose of
computation of profits under the provisions of
section 44BB of the I.T. Act, 1961 if the service
tax/VAT have been separately charged in the
bills and accordingly accounted for. (ii) Whether the ITAT has erred in not
appreciating the fact that section 44BB of the
Act is a self-contained code providing for
computation of profit at a fixed percentage of
gross receipts of the assessee and all the
deductions and exclusions from the gross
receipts are deemed to have been allowed to
the assessee. (iii) Whether the ITAT has erred in not
appreciating the fact that once the receipts are
offered to tax u/s 44BB of the Act which
provides for computation of profits on gross
basis, there is no scope for computing or re-
computing the profits by excluding any part of
the receipts from the total turnover as the same
would amount to defeating the very purpose of
providing for a presumptive scheme of taxation
u/s 44BB of the Act and obviating the need for
maintaining accounts for individuals receipts,
payments etc. (iv) Whether the ITAT has erred in
ignoring the ratio of the judgment in the case of
M/s Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. (82 ITR
542, SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that the sales Tax collected by an assessee
in the ordinary course of its business forms part
of its business receipts. Owing to the inherent
similarity in the nature of sales tax and service
tax, the ratio of the judgment in the said case is
directly applicable to the instant case.
On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Mullick, learned counsel for the assessee submits that an identical substantial questions of law were raised before this Court in the case of Director of Income-tax International Taxation vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., (2019) 104 taxmann.com 353 (Uttarakhand) (FB).
According to the learned counsel, the said decision was rendered by Full Bench of this Court. Moreover, this Court has answered the substantial questions of law against the Revenue Department. Therefore, even, the substantial questions of law which have been raised in the present appeal are squarely covered and answered by the decision of the Learned Full Bench of this Court. 3.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.
A bare perusal of the substantial questions of law mentioned hereinabove, and in the judgment rendered in the case of Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., (Supra) clearly reveals that the substantial questions of law being raised in the present appeal have already been answered by the learned Full Bench in the aforementioned case. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.
_____________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 26th March, 2021 JKJ/Pant
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 →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026