Saipem S.P.A v. DCIT in Third Member

88 ITD 213Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#7094 most cited

What is Saipem S.P.A v. DCIT in Third Member authority for?

Income from business deemed to accrue or arise in India under Section 9(1)(i) Explanation 1 must be limited to the part reasonably attributable to operations carried out within India. Amounts received outside India for activities conducted entirely outside India are not taxable in India.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Saipem SPA v DCIT · 88 ITD 213 · Section 9(1)(i) · income attributable to operations in India · income deemed to accrue or arise in India · international taxation · business income · foreign operations · taxable in India

Judgments citing Saipem S.P.A v. DCIT in Third Member

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)Circle -1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44B

…dealing with presumptive taxation, would apply only to such income which is chargeable under the provisions of the act. Further, Reliance was also placed on the decision of third member of Delhi bench of the tribunal in Saipem S.P.A. v. Dy. CIT [ 2010 [2004] 88 ITD 213 (TM) This decision 10 Atomstroyexport has been followed by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Jt. DIT (OSD) (International Taxation) v. J. Ray Mcdermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd.] 42 SOT 26 (URO) wherein following observations have been made: '8. In such a situation, in our considered opinion the first appellate authority has rightly observe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Abhijit Suresh Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1612/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 72Section 80

…11-12. The Assessing Officer noted that in A.Y. 2010-11 the return of loss was filed beyond due date as per section 139(1) and, therefore, following the provisions of section 139(3) and placing reliance on the judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. Dynavision Ltd. (88 ITD 213) (Chennai). The loss could not be allowed to be carried forward hence, there was no question of allowing any set off of income against losses carried forward for A.Y. 2010-11. 3.4 During the appellate hearing the appellant has submitted that the question of determination of loss should have been fairly dealt with in the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11…

Ulo Systems Llc, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 285/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati (CIT DR)
Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44BSection 44D

…ly income attributable to operations carried out in India. Amounts received outside India for activities carried on entirely outside India have been included. In this regard, reliance has been placed on, inter-alia, the following rulings: -Saipem SPA v DCIT (88 ITD 213) (Del): -JCIT Special Range 26, Mumbai v Furgo Engineers BV (ITA No. 6246/Mum/99) (Mumbai Tribunal); -ACIT v Jindal Drilling Leasing (Unreported judgment) (Mumbai Tribunal); -DCIT v Sonat Offshore Drilling Inc (Unreported judgment) (Mumbai Tribunal); McDermott ETPM v DCIT (92 ITD 227) (Mum) 2. During the financial year ended March 31, 2005 ULO ha…

Ulo Systems Llc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5278/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati (CIT DR)
Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44BSection 44D

…ly income attributable to operations carried out in India. Amounts received outside India for activities carried on entirely outside India have been included. In this regard, reliance has been placed on, inter-alia, the following rulings: -Saipem SPA v DCIT (88 ITD 213) (Del): -JCIT Special Range 26, Mumbai v Furgo Engineers BV (ITA No. 6246/Mum/99) (Mumbai Tribunal); -ACIT v Jindal Drilling Leasing (Unreported judgment) (Mumbai Tribunal); -DCIT v Sonat Offshore Drilling Inc (Unreported judgment) (Mumbai Tribunal); McDermott ETPM v DCIT (92 ITD 227) (Mum) 2. During the financial year ended March 31, 2005 ULO ha…

Westerngeco International Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DDIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 1653/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Ddit, International Taxation, M/S. Westerngeco International 14Th Ltd., Floor, Tower C, Dehradun Building No. 10, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon Pan : Aaacw4324J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Sandeep S. Karhail & Purshottam Anand, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. Dr (Intl. Taxation) Date Of Hearing 09.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 44B

…Assessing Officer observed that out of the total revenues of Rs.716,39,65,861/- the assessee did not offer revenue of Rs.68,68,60,829/- on account of mobilization carried outside India, relying on the decision of Tribunal in the cases of Saipem SPA Vs. DCIT, 88 ITD 213 and ACIT Vs. Jindal Drilling Leasing. However, the Assessing Officer held that entire mobilization revenue was chargeable 3 to tax under section 44BB of the Act, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. (229 ITR 238). Accordingly, he included the said revenue for the p…

Sedco Forex International Inc. Thr. Its Constituted Attorney Mr. Navin Sarda vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Meerut

C.A. No.-004906-004906 - 2010Supreme Court30 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 44B

…. 4915 of 2010), the High Court followed its earlier judgments dated September 20, 2007 and May 22, 2009 to hold that reimbursement of expenses incurred by the assessee was to be included in the gross receipts, and taxable under Section 44BB of the Act. 1 88 ITD 213 (Del) 13 12) From the aforesaid brief narration of facts, it may be discerned that following three types of payments were given by the ONGC to the assessees: (i) Mobilisation/demobilisation advance. (ii) Custom duty reimbursement. (iii) Operational charges reimbursement. 13) The High Court has held that these payments be also included as amount…

Mc Dermott Eastern Hemisphere Td ( Formelry Known As J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd), Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7855/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Adit (It) 1(2), M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Hemisphere Ltd., बनाम/ M.K. Road, C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Cas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Trade World, ‘C’ Wing, 8Th Floor, Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai- 400013 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcm1087F

…ld be first taxable in view of section 5 of the Act read with section 9 and that section 44BB cannot override section 5 which is the charging section. The Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saipem S.P.A. vs. DCIT in Third Member decision reported in 88 ITD 213 (T.M.) (Delhi) held as follows : “ Sec. 44BB is no doubt described as a “Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils” but the terms “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” refer to ss. 28 to 41 and as ss. 43 to 43A. In other words, s. 44BB is no doubt a special provision…

J Ray Mcdermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8720/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Adit (It) 1(2), M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Hemisphere Ltd., बनाम/ M.K. Road, C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Cas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Trade World, ‘C’ Wing, 8Th Floor, Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai- 400013 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcm1087F

…ld be first taxable in view of section 5 of the Act read with section 9 and that section 44BB cannot override section 5 which is the charging section. The Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saipem S.P.A. vs. DCIT in Third Member decision reported in 88 ITD 213 (T.M.) (Delhi) held as follows : “ Sec. 44BB is no doubt described as a “Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils” but the terms “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” refer to ss. 28 to 41 and as ss. 43 to 43A. In other words, s. 44BB is no doubt a special provision…

J Ray Mcdermott Eastrn Hemisphere Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8718/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Adit (It) 1(2), M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Hemisphere Ltd., बनाम/ M.K. Road, C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Cas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Trade World, ‘C’ Wing, 8Th Floor, Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai- 400013 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcm1087F

…ld be first taxable in view of section 5 of the Act read with section 9 and that section 44BB cannot override section 5 which is the charging section. The Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saipem S.P.A. vs. DCIT in Third Member decision reported in 88 ITD 213 (T.M.) (Delhi) held as follows : “ Sec. 44BB is no doubt described as a “Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils” but the terms “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” refer to ss. 28 to 41 and as ss. 43 to 43A. In other words, s. 44BB is no doubt a special provision…

J Ray Mcdermott Eastrn Hemisphere Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8717/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Adit (It) 1(2), M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Hemisphere Ltd., बनाम/ M.K. Road, C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Cas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Trade World, ‘C’ Wing, 8Th Floor, Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai- 400013 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcm1087F

…ld be first taxable in view of section 5 of the Act read with section 9 and that section 44BB cannot override section 5 which is the charging section. The Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saipem S.P.A. vs. DCIT in Third Member decision reported in 88 ITD 213 (T.M.) (Delhi) held as follows : “ Sec. 44BB is no doubt described as a “Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils” but the terms “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” refer to ss. 28 to 41 and as ss. 43 to 43A. In other words, s. 44BB is no doubt a special provision…

J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2227/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Adit (It) 1(2), M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Hemisphere Ltd., बनाम/ M.K. Road, C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Cas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Trade World, ‘C’ Wing, 8Th Floor, Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai- 400013 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcm1087F

…ld be first taxable in view of section 5 of the Act read with section 9 and that section 44BB cannot override section 5 which is the charging section. The Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saipem S.P.A. vs. DCIT in Third Member decision reported in 88 ITD 213 (T.M.) (Delhi) held as follows : “ Sec. 44BB is no doubt described as a “Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils” but the terms “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” refer to ss. 28 to 41 and as ss. 43 to 43A. In other words, s. 44BB is no doubt a special provision…

J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2226/MUM/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Adit (It) 1(2), M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Hemisphere Ltd., बनाम/ M.K. Road, C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Cas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Trade World, ‘C’ Wing, 8Th Floor, Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai- 400013 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcm1087F

…ld be first taxable in view of section 5 of the Act read with section 9 and that section 44BB cannot override section 5 which is the charging section. The Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saipem S.P.A. vs. DCIT in Third Member decision reported in 88 ITD 213 (T.M.) (Delhi) held as follows : “ Sec. 44BB is no doubt described as a “Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils” but the terms “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” refer to ss. 28 to 41 and as ss. 43 to 43A. In other words, s. 44BB is no doubt a special provision…

M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT It 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2309/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Adit (It) 1(2), M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Hemisphere Ltd., बनाम/ M.K. Road, C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Cas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Trade World, ‘C’ Wing, 8Th Floor, Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai- 400013 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcm1087F

…ld be first taxable in view of section 5 of the Act read with section 9 and that section 44BB cannot override section 5 which is the charging section. The Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saipem S.P.A. vs. DCIT in Third Member decision reported in 88 ITD 213 (T.M.) (Delhi) held as follows : “ Sec. 44BB is no doubt described as a “Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils” but the terms “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” refer to ss. 28 to 41 and as ss. 43 to 43A. In other words, s. 44BB is no doubt a special provision…

J.Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd vs. The Jdit (It) 4

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5302/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Adit (It) 1(2), M/S. J. Ray Mc Dermott Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Hemisphere Ltd., बनाम/ M.K. Road, C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Cas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Trade World, ‘C’ Wing, 8Th Floor, Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai- 400013 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcm1087F

…ld be first taxable in view of section 5 of the Act read with section 9 and that section 44BB cannot override section 5 which is the charging section. The Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saipem S.P.A. vs. DCIT in Third Member decision reported in 88 ITD 213 (T.M.) (Delhi) held as follows : “ Sec. 44BB is no doubt described as a “Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils” but the terms “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” refer to ss. 28 to 41 and as ss. 43 to 43A. In other words, s. 44BB is no doubt a special provision…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5290/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Hallin Marine UK Ltd., Vs. ADIT, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/o Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (PAN: AABCH9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2009-10 ADIT, International Taxation, Vs. M/s. Hallin Marine UK Ltd., 13A-Subhash Road, Aayakar C/o Nangia & Company, Suite Bhawan, Dehradun 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (PAN: AABCH9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. 463/Del/2012 [In ITA No. 5290/Del/2012]…

Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5217/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Hallin Marine UK Ltd., Vs. ADIT, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/o Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (PAN: AABCH9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2009-10 ADIT, International Taxation, Vs. M/s. Hallin Marine UK Ltd., 13A-Subhash Road, Aayakar C/o Nangia & Company, Suite Bhawan, Dehradun 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (PAN: AABCH9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. 463/Del/2012 [In ITA No. 5290/Del/2012]…

Saipem S.P.A v. DCIT in Third Member (88 ITD 213) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax