Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee, a non-resident engaged in leasing a drilling rig through a sub-contract arrangement, was entitled to be assessed under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or whether the receipt was taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) read with Article 12 of the India-USA Double Tax Avoidance Treaty.
Analysis: The assessee satisfied the statutory conditions of section 44BB as a non-resident supplying plant and machinery on hire for use in prospecting for or extraction of mineral oil. The decisive consideration was the use of the rig for mineral oil operations, not whether it was supplied under a direct contract with the oil company or through a contractor or sub-contractor. The reasoning followed the view that section 44BB does not create a distinction between a main contractor and a sub-contractor where the plant or machinery is deployed for the relevant oil exploration or extraction activity. The existence of a permanent establishment in India and the effective connection of the contract with that establishment were also found to be present.
Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the benefit of section 44BB and the hire charges from the drilling rig were to be assessed on the deemed profit basis under that provision, not as royalty.