9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has offered a sum of Rs. 61,83,54,322/- under section 44BB (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The assessee is engaged in the business of providing equipments of services or facilities in connection with prospecting for extraction or production of mineral oils. The assessee has considered the receipt of Rs. 40,20,380/- on account of reimbursement of revenue and Rs. 96,69,43,294/- on account of imported material supplied. The Assessing Officer included the reimbursement receipt of Rs.40,20,380/- for computing the taxable income under section 44BB of the Act in view of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. [2008] 300 ITR 265/169 Taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order. The Ld. DI has failed to appreciate that a change of opinion is not permissible under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Ground no.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DI erred in not appreciating that when the AO allowed the claim of the assessee after detailed examination in a scrutiny assessment, it can not be presumed that all the relevant issues were not considered. Ground no. 4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the DI erred in holding that the assessment order dated 24.12.2008 passed under section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and in directing the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned issues as highlighted in ground nos. 4 and 5 above. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 4. The assessee has challenged the order of the Director of Income-tax, International Taxation-II, New Delhi on the ground that it was beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. The assessee has also challenged that on the basis of the change of opinion, action u/s 263 is not permissible. The assessee has also challenged that Assessing Officer has made detailed examination in the scrutiny assessment. Assessee had also challenged order of DIT that profit on off shore supplies is to be calculated @ 10% instead of 2%. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the purpose of taxation. The assessee has opted for working out the taxable income as per the provisions of section 44BB of the Act. Section 44BB of the Act provides for ascertainment of fictional income for the purpose of taxation. It is fixed at 10% of the amount paid or payable for the service rendered or facility provided in connection with the prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils. The consideration fixed under the contract between the parties as the sum to be paid has to be taken as the amount based on which the fictional income has to be ascertained. There is nothing in the section which speak about any deduction in that behalf. It is open to the assessee who want to claim exemptions and exclusions in asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
