9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not involve any element of profit and accordingly, the same could not be included in the total receipts for determining the presumptive income - The AO is directed to exclude service tax from the gross receipts for the purpose of determining the income under Section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Decided in favour of Assessee. Amount included in gross receipts u/s 44BB of the Act - Reimbursement of actual expenses – Held that:- The decision in CIT and Another Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. - [2007 (9) TMI 230 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] followed - The amount had been received by the assessee - Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the said amount which was received by the non-resident company rendering services under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- "The service tax is a statutory liability like custom duty. Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in their decision in Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (supra) concluded that reimbursement of custom duty paid by the assessee could not form part of amount for the purpose of deemed profits u/s 44BB unlike the other amounts received towards reimbursement. Following the view in this decision, Mumbai Bench in their decision in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (supra) held that service tax being a statutory liability, would not involve any element of profit and accordingly, the same could not be included in the total receipts for determining the presumptive income. In the light of view taken by the Mumbai Bench, especially when the ld.DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of actual expenses incurred by the appellant on their behalf is to be included in the gross receipts u/s 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 6. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel fairly agreed that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. - [2008] 300 ITR 265 (Uttarakhand). The facts in the said case were that the assessee rendered services to the ONGC. For the assessment year 1991-92, it claimed that the amount of Rs. 6,16,989/- received on account of reimbursement of freight and transportation charges actually incurred in respect of equipment was not includible while computing its income under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
