C.I.T.I- JODHPUR vs. SMT. KAMLA GOIL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 62 of 2014

M/s Bakr Hughes Singapore PTE …….Appellant Versus Addl. Director of Income Tax International Taxation, Dehradun

…….Respondents

Shri S.K. Posti, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel Shri Ashutosh Posti. Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Coram: Hon’ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J. Dated: 10th August, 2020

RAVI MALIMATH, A.C.J. (Oral)

This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:- “whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal erred in law in holding that amount of service tax amounting to Rs.10,17,19,350/- being statutory levy, received by the appellant from its customers was to be included in calculating the aggregate amount referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act?”

Both the learned counsels submit that the substantial question of law has since been answered by the order dated 12.04.2019 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.40 of 2012 [reported in (2019) 414 ITR 1 (Uttarakhand)]; the substantial question of law therein was answered in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue, by holding that the amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (service recipient), representing the service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the

2 Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act.

In view of the submissions made, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by following the order dated 12.04.2019 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.40 of 2012 [reported in (2019) 414 ITR 1 (Uttarakhand)].

The appeal is disposed off.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ravi Malimath, A.C. J.) 10.08.2020

10.08.2020