TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the income of the assessee is liable to be taxable under Article 23(4) of India - Norway Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 1.1.Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in his interpretation of the scope of the provisions of Article 23(4) of the DTAA which are applicable only to profits derived from the activities of "transportation of supplies or personnel" and operation of other vessels "auxiliary to such activities". 1.2. Whether the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the activities carried out by the assessee included "Anchor Handling Services" which are beyond the scope of the services contemplated under Article 23(4) of the DTAA and therefore, the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, [29 SOT 33 Del] and the Ruling of Hon'ble AAR in the case of Siem Offshore [337 ITR 207], wherein it has been held that service tax receipts of the assessee have to be considered as part of its gross receipt for the purpose of presumptive determination of profit. 2.4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio of the judgment in the case of M/s Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd (82 ITR 542, SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Sales Tax collected by an assessee in the ordinary course of its business forms part of its business receipts. Owing to the inherent similarity in the nature of the sales tax and service tax, the ratio of the judgment in the said case is directly applicable in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion affirmed subsequently in the case of M/s Alcatel Lucent (judgment of Delhi High Court dated 7 11.2013 in ITA No. 327 & Ors of 2012) and followed by 1TAT Delhi in the order dated 13.06.2014 in the case of Nortel Network India International Inc [ITA No. 4766/DEL/20I 1] 4. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee company is a non resident company incorporated under the law of Norway. The assessee company entered into the contract with Gujrat State Petroleum Ltd. vide contract dated 12/12/2007 for off shore supply vessel services required for off shore drilling. Return of income was filed by the assessee electronically o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd perused all the relevant material available on record. It is found that for A.Y. 2005-06, the Tribunal in assessee's own case held as under: "5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As the facts emerges, it remained undisputed that the assessee provided a vessel i.e. tugboats for ONGC work. Assessing Officer has given a very restricted meaning of Article 23(4) by ignoring the second of the two limbs of the Article. It amply covers the tugboats services provided by the assessee to ONGC. In our view CIT(A) has rightly considered the issue allowing the relief to the assessee, which we uphold. 6. In result, revenue's appeal is dismissed." The issue in the present assessment year i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the same would amount to defeating the very purpose of providing for a scheme of simpler mode of computation of profits u/s 44BB of the Act and obviating the need for accounting for individual receipts and payments etc. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Tribunal in case of DDIT vs. Technip Offshore Contracting (29 SOT 33 Del.) and Ruling of AAR in case of Siem Offshore (337 ITR 207). The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of ONGC vs. CIT 376 ITR 306. 9. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted this additions. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Mitchell Drilling International (P.) Ltd. 380 ITR 130. 10. We have heard both t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... laid down by the Apex Court is different than the issue involved in the present case. Therefore, in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 11. As regards to Ground No. 3, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is not liable to pay interest u/s 234B of the Act and in observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision in case of M/s Maersk 334 ITR 79, UK. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT (IT) vs. Alcatel Lucent USA, Inc. 264 CTR 240 (Del.): 223 Taxman 176. 12. The Ld. AR submitted that CIT (A) rig....