2018 (6) TMI 1842 - AT - Income Tax

Receipts chargeable to tax u/s 44BB - Whether revenues of the Assessee as Fees for technical Services ( FTS ) ? - as argued services rendered by the Assessee were in connection with installation/handling tools to facilitate wellhead/ X-mas tree installation relating to prospecting etc. of mineral oil. - HELD THAT - In view of the above decision of Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of assessee itself for A.Y. 2010-11 as relying on ONGC 2015 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT we have no reason to take a contrary view. Accordingly we also hold that the receipts of the assessee are chargeable to tax as per provisions of section 44BB of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act
2. Denial of benefit under Section 44BB and classification of income as Fees for Technical Services (FTS)
3. Interpretation of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
4. Estimation of income at 25 percent of gross revenues
5. Violation of provisions of section 144C(10) of the Act
6. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act
7. Levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Act
8. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Act

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the denial of the benefit of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, arguing that their services were directly related to the prospecting for, or extraction of, mineral oils. They also challenged the classification of their income as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and the India-Singapore DTAA. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their position.

2. The Assessing Officer had estimated the net profit at 25% of gross receipts due to the appellant's failure to maintain books of accounts. The appellant argued against this estimation, emphasizing that their activities were connected to providing technical support for well-head equipment and services. The Hon'ble DRP upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal noted that the issues raised in the current appeal were similar to a previous case involving the appellant. Referring to a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a related matter, the Tribunal held that the appellant's entire receipts should be taxed under Section 44BB of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to the applicability of Section 44BB, dismissing penalty-related issues as premature and addressing interest levy as consequential.

4. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal interpretation provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing the association of services with mining activities for tax assessment under Section 44BB. The judgment underscored the importance of the nature of services provided in connection with mining operations, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's receipts should be taxed under Section 44BB.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, affirming the applicability of Section 44BB to the appellant's income. The decision highlighted the significance of the nature of services provided by the appellant in relation to mining activities, in line with legal precedents and established tax provisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the direct association of their services with mining operations and upholding the tax assessment under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act. The judgment provided clarity on the tax treatment of income derived from services related to mining activities, aligning with legal interpretations and precedents.