TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order. Ground No.2 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the said appeal on the ground that it is covered by the order passed in case of appeal filed by the alleged AoP of SASL and TODDI issued on August 25, 2014. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the said appeal as relief has already been granted in the AoP order. Ground No.3 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to deal with any of the grounds of appeal raised in the Appeal memorandum which may kindly be considered as set out herein, the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity, including grounds 1 to 5 therein. 2. Since the assessee, facts and issue involved in these appeals are common and therefore, the appeal were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a nonresident company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong and has been engaged in the business of providing services and facilities in connection with exploration, exploitation and production of mineral oils. One Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. (TODDI) is a company incorporated under the laws of Uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d dated 21.10.2013 to the assessee i.e. AOP and sent on the address of both the individual entities forming the AOP M/s SASL. However, these notices were received back unserved. Subsequently, notices were again issued on 14.11.2013 and then on 13.2.2014 which were finally served to the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed its reply dated 11.3.2014 denied the existence of AOP and requested for providing of reasons for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act by referring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The reasons were then provided by the AO, but the assessee did not file the return of income. Subsequently, the reasons were provided to the assessee on 21.3.2014 and assessee's objections were invited. In response to the same, assessee filed the objections. Ld. AO diposed off the objections filed by the assessee and served a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act directing the AOP to file its return of income show cause why income from the consortium contract be not taxes in the hands of the alleged AOP. In response to the same, assessee filed its reply reiterating therein that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 07.03,2013 respectively, has held that there was no AOP of Schlumberger Asia Services Limited and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. during the year under consideration. This issue has also been decided in Appeal no. 121 /CIT(A)-II/201314 and 118/CIT(A)-II/2013-14 for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 by the predecessor CIT(A) holding that there was no AOP of Schlumberger Asia Services Limited and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. in those years as well. 6.2 A perusal of the grounds of Appeal and statement of facts filed along with the Form of Appeal in the present case before me would show that Assessment Order has been passed in the case of AOP of Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. and not in the name of M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. as alleged member of Alleged Association of Persons of Schlumberger Asia Services Limited and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. which is the Appellant in the present case. The Ld. ARs, in course of proceedings, have orally submitted that Appeals were filed by AOP as well as by its alleged members, namely, Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the said appeal on the ground that it is covered by the order passed in case of appeal filed by the alleged AoP of SASL and TODDI issued on 20 May 2013. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the said appeal as relief has already been granted in the AoP order. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to deal with any of the grounds of appeal raised in the Appeal memorandum which may kindly be considered as set out herein, the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity, including grounds 1 to 5 therein. 4. At the very outset the counsel for the assessee pointed out that impugned issue stand decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the order of the bench in assessee's own case in ITA No. 5822/Del/2010 and 105/Del/2012 for A. Y. 2008-09. 5. We find force in the contention of the counsel the relevant finding of the coordinate bench reads as under :- "4.5. Thus respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Linde AG Linde Engineering Division vs. DDI (supra) we hold that Consortium Agreement dated 04/05/03 between Slumberger Asia Services Ltd and Transocean Offshore D....