TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nel-II, New Delhi. 2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom. They have entered into Production Sharing Contract with Government of India along with other consortium members for exploration, development and production of mineral oil in various blocks. For the Asstt. Year 2010- 11, they have filed their return of income on 28.9.2010 declaring a loss of Rs. 18,51,22,141/- in their profit and loss account for the year ending 31.3.2010. The assessee had shown an income of Rs. 14,051/- under the head "other income" as against which they have claimed an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 18,51,22,451/- thereby claiming loss of Rs. 18,51,08,090/-. However, in the return filed on 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OT 33 (Delhi) opined that the amount of service tax collected by the assessee in connection with the services or facility or supply specified u/s 44BB of the Act is includible in the total receipts for the purpose of determining presumptive profit of 10% u/s 44 of the Act. In so far as the AO refusing to apply the provisions of Section 44BB of the Act in respect of the revenue earned by the assessee under the agreement with HOEC Ltd. and determining the income as fee for technical services, learned DRP, after considering the contentions of the assessee, held that the amount received by the assessee during the year under consideration from the M/s HOEC contract should be brought to tax by applying the deemed profit rate of 10% u/s 44BB of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the learned DRP did not consider the assessee's objection nor did it give proper reasons for sustaining the assessment order, not only for Asstt. Year 2009-10 but also for the years 2007-08 and 2009-10. It is further submitted that in respect of the Asstt. Years 2007-08 and 2009-10, the matter was sent back to the DRP for passing a speaking order on disallowance made by the AO. 9. Learned AR prayed that facts being similar, a similar course may be followed for this assessment year also. Learned DR does not place any material before us to take a different view. 10. On a careful perusal of the order dated 23.4.2018 in ITA No.1839/Del/2014 in assessee's own case for the Asstt. Years 2009- 10, we find that in all the appeals relatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court held in unequivocal terms that for the purpose of computing the 'presumptive income' of the assessee for the purpose of Section 44BB of the Act, the service tax collected by the assessee on the amount paid to it for rendering services is not to be included u/s 44BB(2) of the Act. Since the service tax is not an amount paid or payable or received or deemed to have been received by the assessee for the services rendered by it and the assessee is only collecting the service charge for passing it on to the Government. In view of the binding precedent while respectfully following the same, we allow Ground No.5 and direct the learned AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,67,25,656/-. Ground No.5 is accordingly allowed. 13. Now coming t....