TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple grounds have been raised by the assessee, basically, two issues arise for consideration. 3. Firstly, whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India in terms of Article - 5 of India-United Kingdom ('UK') Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). Secondly, whether assessee's income is to be computed under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Before we proceed to decide the issues, it is necessary to briefly deal with the facts. The assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in UK and is a tax resident of UK. As stated by the Assessing Officer, assessee is engaged in the business of supply of equipment for global oil and gas industry. It also designs and manufactures the equipments used in dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PE of assessee in India. Consequently, why the Revenue received from ONGC from supply of equipment should not be treated as business income of the assessee sourced from India hence, attributable to PE. 6. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee furnished detailed reply stating that it has no fixed place PE by way of project office nor any installation PE at ONGC Gas well, as, it has not carried out any installation activity but was only involved in supply of equipments from outside India. The Assessing Officer however was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee. Referring to the scope of work as per the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU), the Assessing Officer observed that the contract with ONGC is a integrated contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that the contract executed with ONGC in the year 2018 continues even in the assessment year under dispute and there is no change in terms and conditions of the contract. He submitted, there is also no change in the facts and circumstances between the earlier assessment year and the impugned assessment year. He submitted, the Assessing Officer has fully misconceived the facts while concluding that the assessee had a fixed place PE as well as installation PE in India. In this context, he drew our attention to the submissions made before the Assessing Officer as also the information given by ONGC in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act. Finally, he submitted, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gorically stated that neither it had any project office in India nor had carried out any installation activity at the gas well of ONGC at Krishna Godavari Basin. The scope of work as per the MOU with ONGC and particularly Annexure - 1 & 2 of MOU reproduced in paragraph - 6 of final assessment order clearly indicates that the only work assigned to the assessee under the contract is manufacturing and supply of Subsea Production System (SPS) components including Subsea Trees, Manifolds and Subsea and Topside Control System. All other activities such as Project Management and Design and Engineering, Procurement, construction, fabrication, transportation, testing, support and SPS Services, Onshore fabrication, procurement of line pipes, life and....