9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had challenged the addition of income from Offshore Supply Contracts while calculating the total income u/s. 44BBB of the Act, along with the other grounds of appeal. Ground no.1 being the legal ground on limitation has not been pressed by the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the laws of Russian Federation coming under the Ministry of Russian Federation for Atomic Energy, Moscow and is engaged in the business of setting up of power projects across the world including construction, erection of plant and machinery, testing and commissioning of power projects. The assessee had filed its return of income dated 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... technical services', royalty income @ 10% of tax prescribed in the tax treaty between India and Russia. The ld. A.O. passed the draft assessment order dated 29.12.2022 u/s. 144C(1) of the Act, proposing an addition on deemed income u/s. 44BBB of the Act and business income attributed to PE @ 30% of the profit calculated at 15% of the total offshore supply receipt along with the other additions and determined the total income at Rs. 328,14,60,573/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed its objection before the Hon'ble DRP who vide direction dated 25.09.2023 disposed off the objections raised by the assessee and proposed the variance. The ld. A.O. then passed the impugned assessment order dated 26.10.2023, determining the total income at Rs. 515, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision came into effect from 01.04.1990 along with Circular No. 550 dated 01.01.1990 enumerating that even if some of the operations relating to supplies has taken place in India or the permanent establishment of the assessee was involved in the offshore supply, all receipts pertaining to the said project would come under the purview of section 44BBB of the Act whether the activities are carried offshore or onshore. 9. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee contended that the issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal which had relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.(supra) and stated that there are no change in facts f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly, not chargeable to tax. The receipts thereof do not form part of receipts for the purpose of computational provisions of section 44BBB. Explanation-4 could not overcome the limitation imposed by Explanation-l(a) to section 9(i)(i) and hence,the impugned income do not form part of business receipts for computation of income u/s 448A8 of the Act. We held so." 12. Thus, from the above it could be concluded that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the tribunal for earlier years and, therefore, we are of the view that the finding in the earlier years will hold good for the impugned year where there is no change in the circumstances in whatsoever manner may be. Therefore, ground nos. 2 to 4 raised by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
