TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the consideration received from ONGC was taxable as Fees for Technical Services or Royalty. (ii) Whether the applicant had a Permanent Establishment in India under Article 5 of the India UAE DTAA and its income was taxable in India as business income. (iii) Whether the income from the ONGC contract had to be computed under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the consideration received from ONGC was taxable as Fees for Technical Services or Royalty.
Analysis: The services were geophysical and seismic survey operations undertaken in connection with oil and mineral exploration. On the admitted facts, the payer did not acquire any right to use the applicant's vessels or equipment, and the receipts did not answer the statutory or treaty description of Royalty. The Revenue also accepted that the receipts did not fall within Fees for Technical Services.
Conclusion: The consideration was not taxable as Fees for Technical Services or Royalty, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the applicant had a Permanent Establishment in India under Article 5 of the India UAE DTAA and its income was taxable in India as business income.
Analysis: The vessels and equipment were found to constitute a fixed place through which the business was carried on in a definite geographical area, at the applicant's disposal, satisfying the ingredients of Article 5(1). The special service-PE clause in Article 5(2)(i) did not apply because the activities were not furnished through employees or personnel in the manner contemplated by that provision. The absence of an express treaty clause covering exploration-linked seismic operations did not displace the general definition under Article 5(1).
Conclusion: The applicant had a Permanent Establishment in India, and the income from the contract was taxable in India as business income, against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the income from the ONGC contract had to be computed under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The activities were in connection with exploration of mineral oil and thus fell within the special scheme for computation of profits from such business. Once the income was held taxable, the applicable computation provision was section 44BB.
Conclusion: The income was required to be computed under section 44BB, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The ruling held that the receipts were not taxable as FTS or royalty, but the applicant had a Permanent Establishment in India and its contract income was taxable as business income, to be computed under the special presumptive regime for mineral oil exploration.
Ratio Decidendi: For seismic survey operations carried on through vessels and equipment in a defined offshore area, a fixed place Permanent Establishment may arise under Article 5(1) of the treaty even if the operation is for a limited period, and where the special treaty clause invoked does not fit the nature of the activity, the general PE definition governs; receipts from such operations are not FTS or royalty where no right to use the equipment is transferred, and section 44BB applies to computation of the resulting business income.
TaxTMI 
