Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.61

Section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 61 (Special provision for computation of income on presumptive basis in respect of certain business activities of certain non-residents) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 61 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 44BB is ONGC v. CIT (376 ITR 306), cited in 241 of the 388 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44BB

ONGC v. CIT
376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

CIT v. Mitchell Drilling International P. Ltd.
380 ITR 130 · 2016 · High Court
84
citing judgments

For computing presumptive income under Section 44BB, gross receipts do not include service tax reimbursements received from a client (like ONGC) if such amounts are not payments for services or plant/machinery directly used in the prospecting, extraction, or production of mineral oils.

DIT v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd.
414 ITR 1 · 2019 · High Court
82
citing judgments

Service tax paid to the Government of India is not 'on account of' the provision of services for mineral oil exploration and production, and thus does not form part of the aggregate taxable amount under Section 44BB(2)(a) and (b).

UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT
121 ITD 131 · 2009 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.

CIT v. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc.
300 ITR 265 · 2008 · High Court
50
citing judgments

For computing profits under the presumptive taxation scheme of section 44BB, gross revenue excludes service tax collected and deposited by the assessee but includes mobilization/demobilization fees for offshore services.

DIT v. Galileo International Inc.
224 CTR 251 · High Court
37
citing judgments

If the income attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is less than the remuneration paid to a dependent agent, the assessment is extinguished and no further computation of income is required.

Sedco Forex International Inc. v. CIT
399 ITR 1 · 2017 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

Section 44BB, which provides for presumptive taxation of profits and gains of business in the case of exploration of mineral oils, does not override the provisions of Sections 5, 9, or 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For business profits to be taxed in India, the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India must be established by the Revenue.

44BB(2). DIT v. Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd.
62 Taxmann.com 24 · 2015 · High Court
21
citing judgments

For the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44BB(2), 'gross receipts' do not include service tax collected by the assessee and paid to the government, as it does not represent an amount paid to the assessee for services rendered in connection with mineral oil extraction.

Production Testing Services Inc. v. DCIT
68 Taxmann.com 143 · 2016 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Technip UK Ltd. v. DIT (International Tax)
74 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · High Court
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 44BB

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl, Tax 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90