9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information given by ONGC in pursuance to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act makes it very clear that the assessee was only engaged in manufacturing and supply and support of components including manufacture and supply of subsea and top side control system. Thus the material on record clearly indicate that the assessee was not in any way involved in onshore activities including installation at the site of ONGC. It appears, just to show that facts in the impugned assessment year are different from A.Y. 2020-21, the Assessing Officer has attempted to project the facts in a different manner. In the process, has completely misconceived the facts. Not a single piece of evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration. 3. Firstly, whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment ( PE ) in India in terms of Article 5 of India-United Kingdom ( UK ) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ). Secondly, whether assessee s income is to be computed under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Before we proceed to decide the issues, it is necessary to briefly deal with the facts. The assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in UK and is a tax resident of UK. As stated by the Assessing Officer, assessee is engaged in the business of supply of equipment for global oil and gas industry. It also designs and manufactures the equipments used in drilling and production of oil and gas. On 5th Nov 2018, Oil and Natural Gas Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m supply of equipment should not be treated as business income of the assessee sourced from India hence, attributable to PE. 6. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee furnished detailed reply stating that it has no fixed place PE by way of project office nor any installation PE at ONGC Gas well, as, it has not carried out any installation activity but was only involved in supply of equipments from outside India. The Assessing Officer however was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee. Referring to the scope of work as per the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU), the Assessing Officer observed that the contract with ONGC is a integrated contract for offshore supply as well as onshore activities. He further observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year under dispute and there is no change in terms and conditions of the contract. He submitted, there is also no change in the facts and circumstances between the earlier assessment year and the impugned assessment year. He submitted, the Assessing Officer has fully misconceived the facts while concluding that the assessee had a fixed place PE as well as installation PE in India. In this context, he drew our attention to the submissions made before the Assessing Officer as also the information given by ONGC in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act. Finally, he submitted, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s case in A.Y. 2020-21. He drew our attention to the relevant observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... installation activity at the gas well of ONGC at Krishna Godavari Basin. The scope of work as per the MOU with ONGC and particularly Annexure 1 2 of MOU reproduced in paragraph 6 of final assessment order clearly indicates that the only work assigned to the assessee under the contract is manufacturing and supply of Subsea Production System (SPS) components including Subsea Trees, Manifolds and Subsea and Topside Control System. All other activities such as Project Management and Design and Engineering, Procurement, construction, fabrication, transportation, testing, support and SPS Services, Onshore fabrication, procurement of line pipes, life and field support etc. are to be undertaken by other consortium members. 12. In fact, the informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DIT vs. E-Funds (2018) 13 SCC 294, the Coordinate Bench has further held that burden of establishing existence of PE is on the Revenue, which has not been discharged. Thus ultimately, Coordinate Bench has held that since there is no PE of the assessee in India, section 44BB of the Act would not apply. 14. In our considered opinion, the facts involved relating to the issue in disputes are more or less identical to A.Y. 2020-21. In fact, DRP has merely relied upon the directions issued in A.Y. 2020-21. Since, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Tribunal in A.Y. 2020-21 vide ITA No.521/Del/2023 dated 06.06.2023 and there is no discernible factual difference in the assessment year under dispute, we are inclined to follow the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
