Presumptive scheme of taxation, Turnover, & Amount of service tax
Short Overview Amount reimbursed to assessee by service recipient, representing the service tax paid earlier by assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 44BB.
Issue arose for consideration as to whether Tribunal erred in law in holding that amount of service tax amounting being statutory levy, received by assessee from its customers was to be included in calculating the aggregate amount referred to in sub-section (2) of section 44BB.
It is held that Substantial question of law was answered in DIT International Taxation v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 1 (Uttarakhand) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (Uttarakhand-HC) in favour of the assessee by holding that the amount reimbursed to assessee by service recipient, representing the service tax paid earlier by assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 44BB.
Decision: In assessee’s favour.
Followed:
Director of Income Tax International Taxation v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 1 (Uttarakhand) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (Uttarakhand-HC).
IN THE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
RAVI MALIMATH, A.C.J. & N.S. DHANIK, J.
BAKR Hughes Singapore Pte. v. Addl. DIT
Income Tax Appeal No. 62 of 2014
10 August, 2020
Appellant’s by: S.K. Posti, learned senior counsel appearing
Respondent by: Ashutosh Posti, Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel
ORDER
Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. (Oral)
This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law :–
“whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal erred in law in holding that amount of service tax amounting to Rs. 10,17,19,350 being statutory levy, received by the appellant from its customers was to be included in calculating the aggregate amount referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act?”
2. Both the learned counsels submit that the substantial question of law has since been answered by the Order, dated 12-4-2019 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.40 of 2012 [reported in (2019) 414 ITR 1 (Uttarakhand) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (Uttarakhand-HC)]; the substantial question of law therein was answered in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue, by holding that the amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (service recipient), representing the service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act.
3. In view of the submissions made, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by following the Order, dated 12-4-2019 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.40 of 2012 [reported in (2019) 414 ITR 1 (Uttarakhand) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (Uttarakhand-HC)].
4. The appeal is disposed off.
