9. DIT v. Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd.

320 ITR 104Reported decision2010#20482 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing 9. DIT v. Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd.

Weatherford Drilling International (Bvi) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, as agreed by Ld

ITA 3524/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Weatherford Drilling Vs Dcit(International Taxation)- International (Bvi) Ltd. 4(3)(2) Formerly Known As C/O-Nangia & Company Ad.Cit(It)-2(2), 1101, Tower B, Peninsula Room No.1728, Air India Business Park, Ganpatrao Building, Nariman Point, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400013 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacw7377F

Section 44BSection 5

…mentioned in sub- section (2) of section 44BB of the Act as deemed profit & gains. Our view further find supports from the decision in Sedco Forex International Inc. vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 1, 8 (Uttrakhand), DIT vs Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 104, 106 (Del.), DIT vs OHM Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 406 (Del.), Global Industries Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.(2012) 343 ITR 253(AAR). Section 44BB of the Act is a special provision for computing profit & gains in connection with the business oil exploration. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision from Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the d…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Swiwer Offshore Pte Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4994/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal and Ms. Indira Anand-AR.sFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru-Sr. DR

Section 254(1)Section 44B

…/extraction or production of mineral oils,that as per the Explana - tion to Sec.44B ship was a plant,that same was used by the hirer in its business of extraction / production of mineral oil.He made reference to the cases of Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd(320 ITR 104); Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.(291ITR 482); ONGC Ltd.(309 ITR 7939/M/11+4-Swiwar Offshore Pte.Ltd. 244);Wavefield Inseis ASA,in RE (320ITR290); Seabird Exploration FZ LLC,in RE (320 ITR 286);Wavefield Inseis ASA, in RE(322ITR645);Seabird Exploration FZ LLC,in RE (326 ITR558); Sundowner Offshore International (Bermuda) Ltd (183 taxman 365)a…

Swiwar Offshore Pte .Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

ITA 7939/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal and Ms. Indira Anand-AR.sFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru-Sr. DR

Section 254(1)Section 44B

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Fugro Geoteam As, Dehradun

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 5928/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Amit Arora & Suraj Nangia, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3

…ike project' only and second limb of the exception was not subject matter of said instruction. This position was corroborated in numerous decisions including MI Overseas (AAR), CAT Geodata Gmbh (AAR) etc. 9. DIT vs. Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd ([2010] 320 ITR 104/182 Taxman 59 (Delhi)) and Geofizyka Torun sp Z.O.O, In re [2010] 320 ITR 268/186 Taxman 213 (AAR - New Delhi), relied upon by Delhi High Court in DIT v. OHM Ltd. ([2012] 28 taxmann.com 120/[2013] 212 Taxman 440 (Delhi)), did not adjudicate the aspect of eligibility in terms of second limb of the exclusionary proviso i.e. "for a project undertake…