Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)–III, New Delhi v. Grant Geophysical International Inc
[Citation -2020-LL-0817-48]

Citation 2020-LL-0817-48
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)–III, New Delhi
Respondent Name Grant Geophysical International Inc.
Court HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 17/08/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags fee for technical services • clarificatory in nature • royalty • reimbursement of expense
Bot Summary: Respondent Present: Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the respondent. Coram: Hon ble Ravi Malimath, ACJ. Hon ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. Hon ble Ravi Malimath, ACJ. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT has erred in holding that the amount received by the assessee on account of the provision of seismic survey services as also alleged reimbursement of expenses is not in the nature of Fee for Technical Services of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and was not taxable under the provisions of Sec. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT has erred holding that the revenues earned by the assessee on account of conduct of seismic surveys were in connection with prospecting etc. On considering the contentions, it transpires that the said questions of law have already been answered by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in 376 ITR 306 ONGC vs. CIT. In terms whereof, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The said position is not disputed by both the learned counsels. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue, by following the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 376 ITR 306 ONGC vs. CIT. 17.08.2020 KKS..


IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 63 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) III, New Delhi. Appellant Versus. M/s Grant Geophysical International Inc. C/o Matta Sudhir & Co., 15 Astley Hall, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Respondent Present: Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for respondent. . Coram: Hon ble Ravi Malimath, ACJ. Hon ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. Hon ble Ravi Malimath, ACJ. (Oral) appellant has raised following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Hon ble ITAT has erred in holding that amount received by assessee on account of provision of seismic survey services as also alleged reimbursement of expenses is not in nature of Fee for Technical Services (FTS as defined u/s 9(1) (vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act) and was not taxable under provisions of Sec. 44DA r.w. Section 115A of Act. (2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon ble ITAT has erred holding that revenues earned by assessee on account of conduct of seismic surveys were in connection with prospecting etc. Of 2 mineral oil and hence eligible for treatment u/s 44BB of Act, without adjudicating aspect of eligibility under second limb of exclusionary proviso (Explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) of I.T. Act, 1961) i.e. for project undertaken by recipient in terms of decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Rio Tinto Technical Services [2012-TII-01-HC-Del-INTL]. (3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Hon ble ITAT has erred in his interpretation of legislative intent behind scheme of taxation envisaged in 9 (1)(vi) read with sections 44DA and 44BB, ignoring decisions in cases of M/s Rolls Royce Pvt. Ltd. [2007- TII-03-HC-UKHAND-INTL] and M/s ONGC as agent of M/s Foramer France [920080299 ITR438 Uttarakhand]. (4) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon ble ITAT has erred in ignoring distinct scheme of taxation of Royalty & Fee for Technical Services are disregarding insertion of provisos in section 44BB/44DA/115 and rationale behind introduction of said claificatory provisos in Finance Bill 2010 in holding that income of assessee company was covered under provisions of Section 44BB. (5) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon ble ITAT has erred in not appreciating that since sections 44DA/115A are special provisions for taxation of income in nature of Royalties and FTS and if special provisions is made respecting certain matter that matter us excluded from general provision under rule of Generalities speciallibus non derogant (6) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Hon ble ITAT has erred in not appreciating fact that proviso to section 44DA brought by Finance Act, 2011 was only clarificatory in nature and its application has to be read into main provisions with effect from time main provision came into effect in view of decisions 3 of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Sedco Forex International Drilling vs. CIT. 2. On considering contentions, it transpires that said questions of law have already been answered by order of Hon ble Supreme Court of India in 376 ITR 306 (Supreme Court) ONGC vs. CIT. In terms whereof, substantial questions of law were answered in favour of assessee and against revenue. said position is not disputed by both learned counsels. 3. In view thereof, appeal is disposed off. substantial questions of law are answered in favour of assessee and against revenue, by following judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 376 ITR 306 (Supreme Court) ONGC vs. CIT. (N.S.Dhanik, J.) (Ravi Malimath, ACJ.) 17.08.2020 KKS Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)III, New Delhi v. Grant Geophysical International Inc
Report Error