TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee is foreign company incorporated under the laws of Norway. It is engaged in the activities relating to acquisition of 3D sesismic data under contracts with Reliance Industries Ltd. and ONGC. For the year under dispute, the return of income was filed on 28.11.2008 declaring income of Rs. 18,27,42,870/- from contract receipt u/s 44BB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and AO passed draft assessment order, wherein, the assessee's claim for the being taxed u/s 44BB was rejected and its income has been taxed as fees from technical services. Aggrieved by the proposed variation in its income, the assessee has filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PGS Geophysical AS Vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax reported in 2014-TII-35-HC-DEL-INTL. 3.1. It was submitted that the issue raised in the second ground is covered in favour of the Revenue by the various judgments of the Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court, namely: 1. CIT & Another Vs. Atwood Oceanics Pacific Ltd. [Uttrakhand High Court] [2010-TII-12-HC-UKHAND-INTL] dated May 19, 2010. 2. CIT Vs. R&B Falcon Drilling Co. [Uttrakhand High Court] [2009- TII-20-HC-UKHAND-INTL] dated: April 24,2009  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se and the arguments of the Assessing Officer as well as the contentions of the assessee. The Panel has also noted that the Ruling of AAR in the case of Geophzika Torun Sp. Zo.0 applies to the facts of the present case and in that Ruling the AAR has considered most of the arguments made by the assessee as well as by the AO in the present case. Although the AO has dismissed this ruling on the ground that it is applicable only to the case in which it was given, the Panel is of the view that such a Ruling given on similar set of cases would have considerable persuasive value. However, the Panel has noted that the Department has filed a writ before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the Ruling of AAR in the case of Geophyzika Torun Sp. Zo.o. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & demobilization revenue aggregating to Rs. 282,123,166/- pertained to transportation of the vessel outside Indian territorial waters, and that accordingly, the same was not chargeable to tax in India in terms of section 5 read with section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Panel has noted that the AO has relied on a number of decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in which this issue has been decided in favour of the department: 1. CIT & Another Vs. Atwood Oceanics Pacific Ltd. [Uttrakhand High Court] [2010-TII-12-HC-UKHAND-INTL] dated May 19, 2010. 2. CIT Vs. R&B Falcon Drilling Co. [Utt....