M/S SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

M/S SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44D r.w.s. 115A. Finally, on consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances: COMPUTATION OF INCOME A. Profit/loss APGPCL Project i) Operation & maintenance contract (as discussed above) (ii) 160 MW Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Station 1,70,00,000 To be taxed @20% B. Loss from

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP UK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

68,74,624/-. 8. The assessee raised objections before the DRP and the DRP, vide directions dated 23.12.2013 framed order u/s 144C(5) of the Act, deleted the proposed additions by the Assessing Officer. The gist of the directions read as under: “Under the provisions of section 44BB of the Act the presumptive rate of taxation is applicable

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

44D has been made inoperative in respect of agreements after the 31st Day of March 2003 and with this two streams for taxation of persons engaged in providing services of technical nature is evident, one for those having a PE in India (Section 44DA) and the other who do not have a PE [Section 9 (1) (vii) read

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

44D read with Section 115A. 14. The CIT(A) vide the order dated 10.01.2008, rejected the submissions of the Assessee company. The CIT(A) in his order noted that the Assessee company was engaged in licensing of MX software which is an engineering friendly tool for designing all types of road projects to Indian customers. He noted the clarification

M/S. DOLPHIN DRILLING PTE. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

44D of the Act. We do not see how any other view can be taken if the works or services mentioned under a particular agreement is directly associated or inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil.” In the case of CIT vs. Foramer France: 247 ITR 436 (All.) (enclosed as annexure 3), relied

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

44D of the Act. On the basis of the said conclusion reached by us, we allow the appeals under consideration by setting aside the orders of the High Court passed in each of the cases before it and restoring the view taken by the learned Appellate Commissioner as affirmed by the learned Tribunal.” 9. Furthermore the coordinate bench in case

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed,

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2014-15

44D has not been made inoperative by section 44BB. Further, proviso to section 44 BB excludes applicability of section 42, section 44 D, section 44 DA and section 115A and section 293A.” 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also examined the articles of the DTAA with reference to the technical knowledge, experience, skill know

TECHNIP UK LTD.,GURGAON vs. DIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

44D of the Act. 24. He submitted that the amendment brought out by the Finance Act, 2010, in Section 44BB and 44DA of the Act amounts to substantial change in the scheme of taxation of income arising to non residents engaged in the business of prospecting/extraction of mineral oils. Such a substantial 18 amendment can take effect prospectively

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

68 taxmann.com 143 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “29. Having stated the above, we must clarify that the income falling within Section 115A(1)(b) the Act which does not fall within the four corners of Section 44DA(1) of the Act would also no taxable under Section 4488(1) of four corners