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 assessee's rig was a qualifying ship and whether the tonnage tax regime applied, including exclusion from book profit under section 115JB; (ii) whether interest on borrowings was disallowable on account of interest-free advances to a subsidiary; (iii) whether employees' contribution to PF and ESI could be disallowed in a case assessed under the tonnage tax scheme; (iv) whether cash deposits during the demonetisation period were unexplained; (v) whether the payment to the non-resident supplier attracted disallowance under section 40(a)(ia); and (vi) whether the write-off of amounts was allowable.
Issue (i): whether the assessee's rig was a qualifying ship and whether the tonnage tax regime applied, including exclusion from book profit under section 115JB.
Analysis: The rig had already been held in the assessee's own case to be a ship for the purposes of the tonnage tax provisions. The controlling test was whether the vessel fell within the definition of a qualifying ship and, more particularly, whether it was excluded as an offshore installation. The reasoning accepted that the vessel was mobile, registered, and used for drilling operations in the manner of a ship, whereas offshore installations are fixed structures. Once the rig was treated as a qualifying ship, the statutory consequence under the tonnage tax provisions followed, and the book profit derived from such activities was also to be excluded in terms of the relevant tonnage tax provision governing MAT computation.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): whether interest on borrowings was disallowable on account of interest-free advances to a subsidiary.
Analysis: The governing principle is that interest is disallowable only if the Assessing Officer establishes a nexus between borrowed funds and non-business advances. Where the assessee has sufficient own funds and the advances are shown to be for business purposes or commercial expediency, no notional disallowance is justified. On the facts, the assessee had sufficient reserves and the Revenue failed to establish the required nexus.
Conclusion: The disallowance of interest was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): whether employees' contribution to PF and ESI could be disallowed in a case assessed under the tonnage tax scheme.
Analysis: Although the general law on employees' contribution was against the assessee, the computation of business income under the tonnage tax scheme is presumptive and is not linked to actual business profits. A separate disallowance of employees' contribution would not alter the tonnage-tax based income computation. On that limited issue, the addition had no relevance to the tax computation under the special scheme.
Conclusion: The revised ground was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iv): whether cash deposits during the demonetisation period were unexplained.
Analysis: The assessee produced month-wise cash flow statements and opening cash balances, and the books were neither rejected nor found deficient. The cash balance available on the relevant date was sufficient to explain the deposits made in specified bank notes. In these circumstances, the deposits could not be treated as unexplained cash credit.
Conclusion: The addition was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (v): whether the payment to the non-resident supplier attracted disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Analysis: The material before the appellate authorities was insufficient to conclusively determine the true character of the payment and whether it was chargeable to tax in India or covered by withholding obligations. Since the nature of the services and the taxability of the remittance required further verification, a final decision on merits was not possible on the existing record.
Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
Issue (vi): whether the write-off of amounts was allowable.
Analysis: The write-off comprised disputed and allegedly irrecoverable balances, mainly arising from transactions with the assessee's customer. The lower authorities had not examined the break-up or the recoverability of each component in sufficient detail. The matter therefore required fresh examination on the basis of the supporting material and any further evidence.
Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the tonnage tax relief and interest disallowance failed, the assessee succeeded on the demonetisation cash deposit issue and the tonnage-tax specific PF and ESI ground, while the withholding-tax and write-off issues were sent back for fresh consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: A vessel used for drilling operations is not excluded from the tonnage tax regime merely because it is stationed during operations, and interest disallowance on advances is impermissible without proof of a direct nexus between borrowed funds and the impugned advances; in a tonnage-tax computation, presumptive taxation controls the income base.
TaxTMI 
