| Case ID |
37839e0b-76cd-46d0-a922-876d8fb3cf38 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL No. 13 OF 2015 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 31, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled in favor of the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the mobilization/demobilization fee received by the appellant, a Norway-based company engaged in acquiring 3D seismic data, should be included in the calculation of income under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the provisions of section 5(2) did not prevent the inclusion of income received outside India for tax computation purposes under the special provisions of section 44BB. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not claim benefits under section 44BB(3), and thus, the mobilization advance received outside India was rightly included in the taxable income under section 44BB(2). This decision reinforces the application of special tax provisions for non-residents engaged in mineral exploration activities and clarifies the extent of income tax liability for non-residents with respect to income sourced outside India. |
| Summary |
This case involves Fugro Geoteam AS, a foreign company incorporated in Norway, which was engaged in the acquisition of 3D seismic data under contracts with R Ltd. and ONGC. The dispute arose regarding the applicability of section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the mobilization/demobilization fees received by the company for services provided outside India. The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that such fees were to be included in the computation of income under section 44BB, clarifying that provisions in section 5(2) do not restrict the taxation of income received outside India for non-residents. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of understanding the special tax provisions applicable to non-residents and their income from activities involving mineral oil exploration. This case highlights key aspects of international taxation, non-resident income tax obligations, and the interpretation of specific provisions within the Income-tax Act. |
| Court |
Uttarakhand High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
ONGC,
Fugro Geoteam AS,
R Ltd.
|
| Judges |
K.M. Joseph, C.J.,
V.K. Bist, J
|
| Lawyers |
S.K. Posti, Advocate for the Appellant,
H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Fugro Geoteam AS
|
| Respondents |
Additional Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 2075,
(2015) 376 ITR 529
|
| Other Citations |
Sedco Forex International Inc. v. CIT [2008] 299 ITR 238 (Uttaranchal)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
44BB,
5
|