ADIT INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. PARADIGM GEOPHYSICAL PTY LTD., DEHRADUN
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a High Court judgment which held that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) applies only after tax liability under domestic law is established. The High Court found that Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act was applicable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals against identical orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2005-06. The CIT(A) had applied a previous Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2003-04.
What were the issues?
Whether the DTAA provisions could be applied to provide relief when tax liability is already established under the domestic law, specifically Section 44BB, for services rendered in exploration of oil.
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.
- ACIT v. Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd.18 citing122 ITD 155 · 2008 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue and are directed against identical orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-II, Dehradun for the A.Y. 2005-06 dated 27.12.2011 and 13.2.2011 respectively.
After hearing rival contentions we find that the First Appellate Authority has applied the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier A.Y. 2003-04 in ITA 4764/Del/2005 order dt. 27.6.2008 reported in 122 ITD 0155. and 2150/Del/12 A.Y. 2005-06 Paradigm Geophysical Ply Ltd., Dehradun 2.1. This decision was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in ITA 47/2008 judgement dt. 11.7.2013 wherein at para 2 it was held as follows.
“2. Before the Tribunal, the principal contention of the revenue was that the matter of tax liability of the assessee was required to be sorted out in accordance with the Treaty inter se the country, to which the assessee belongs, and the Government of India. We think that, for the reasons rightly recorded in the judgment and order under appeal, the Tribunal has rejected the said contention and upheld the judgment of the appellate authority. We think that the Tribunal has correctly held that the Treaty will come into play only when the tax liability of the assessee under the domestic law is established. In the instant case, the appellate authority correctly. found that the domestic law fastened tax liability upon the assessee in view of Section 9( I )(vii)(b) of the Act. It, then, proceeded to consider Section 44BB of the Act and found that, since technical service was provided by the assessee, without having a permanent address in India, to an Indian Company for the purpose of exploration of oil, the tax liability of the assessee under the domestic law is leviable in terms of the provisions contained in Section 44BB of the Act and the law, as provided in Section 44BB, being such that there is no question of applying the provisions of the Treaty in order to give any further relief to the appellants, and, as such, the provisions of the Treaty do not apply in the matter of assessment of tax liability of the assessee. We have not been able to take a contrary view. “ and 2150/Del/12 A.Y. 2005-06 Paradigm Geophysical Ply Ltd., Dehradun 2.2. Respectfully following the same we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in both the appeals and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue.
In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th April, 2016.
More judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)(b)
- Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle-6(1)(1), BangaloreITA 2058/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2026AY 2020-21
- Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle-6(1)(1), BangaloreITA 2057/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2026AY 2017-18
- Income Tax Officer, Minto Road vs Hcl Technologies Ltd., Nehru PlaceITITA 59/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
- Income Tax Officer, Minto Road vs Hcl Technologies Limited, Nehru PlaceITITA 58/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
- General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026