DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun V. M/s. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., Mumbai

ITA 2133/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5214 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T S MAPWAL
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 44BB; 115A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN VS TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING INC., 1 ST FLOOR, SPECTRA HIGH STREET, HIRANANDANI BUSINESS PARK, POWAI, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCT6720C ASSESSEE BY : SH. AMIT ARORA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. T.S. MAPWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 17 . 09 .20 21 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 .0 9 .20 21 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, NOIDA DATED 10.02.20 16. 2. THE MOOT ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE LD. C IT (A) ERRED IN REVERSE IN THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH ITS ASSOCIATE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE STA TUS OF AOP IN RESPECT OF REVENUES ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS OF DRI LLING RIGS UNDER A CONTRACT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS CONS ORTIUM WITH ITS ASSOCIATE. 3. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE GROUND NOS. (I ), 1.1 (A), (B), (C) & (D) AND (II) ARE SIMILAR IN TOTO TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 IN ITA NO.4405 /DEL/2014 AND FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 2 4. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE AND COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING, THE ORDER AUTHORED BY ONE OF THE MEM BERS OF BENCH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: DATED: 7TH MAY, 2018 THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, REVENU E HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2011 , PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN FOR THE QUANTUM OF A SSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) /144C(3)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. THE OTHER APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE, 30/05/2014 FOR THE QU ANTUM OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) /147/ 144C. SINCE COMMON ISSU ES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, SAME WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REVERSING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE. ALONG WITH M/S SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD (SASL'), IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE STATUS OF ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS (AOP ) IN RESPECT OF REVENUES ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF DEEP WATER DRILLING RIGS ALONGWITH INTEGRATED SERVICES TO M/S ONGC UNDER A CONTRACT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS CONSORTIUM WITH SASL. 1.1 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT: ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 3 A) THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED BY M/S ONGC, NOT SEPARATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY TO M/S TRANSOCEAN OFFSH ORE DEEPWATER DRILLING INC AND (TODDT) AND M/S SASL, BUT TO A CONSORTIUM CONSISTING OF TODDI AND SASL. B) THE BID WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES AS A SINGLE ENTITY, THE CONTRACT WAS NEGOTIATED BY & AWARDED TO CONSORTIUM AS A SINGLE ENTITY, THE RISKS AND COSTS WERE CAST ON THE CONSORTIUM AS A SINGLE ENTITY, SO MUCH SO THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT, TERMINATION OF CONTRACT BY ONGC IN RESPECT OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBER WOULD DEEM TO CONSTITUTE SIMULTANEOUS TERMINATION OF THE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT. C) THE PARTIES HAD COME TOGETHER FOR A COMMON PURPOSE & JOINT ACTION, AND IN TERMS OF THE CONTRAC T, HAD ASSUMED JOINT AND SEVERAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. D) THE NATURE, SCOPE AND MAGNITUDE OF THE CONTRACT WAS SUCH THAT NEITHER OF THE PARTIES WAS INDIVIDUAL LY COMPETENT OR EVEN ELIGIBLE FOR EXECUTING THE PROJEC T ON ITS OWN AND THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED ON THE STRENGTH OF THE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT ENVISAGING THE BIDDING FOR AND AWARD/EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT AS A SINGLE ENTITY AND THEREFORE, ANY SUBSEQUENT AGREEME NT BETWEEN THE PARTNERS REGARDING THE RESPECTIVE SCOPE OF WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN INDIVIDUALLY DOES NOT NEGA TE THE CONSTITUTION OF AOP. ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 4 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), HAVING ON THE ONE HAND HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH M/S SASL, DOES NOT CONSTITU TE AOP, HAS ERRED IN PROCEEDING TO ALSO HOLD THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN MAKING A PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ITS INCOME FROM THE CONT RACT WITH ONGC. 3. THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST U/;S 234B OF THE ACT AND IN OBSERVING THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S MAERSK [334 ITR 79, UK] 3.1 THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE FACT THAT THE CASE OF M/S MAERSK WAS DISTINGUIS HABLE ON FACTS WHEREIN THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE DESPITE THE SPECIFIC MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT STIPULATING THE EMPLOYER BEING LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE SALARY PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE, THEREBY HOLDING TH AT AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX ON SALARY . 3.2 THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THE CASE DOES NOT LAY DOWN A GENERAL PROPOSITI ON OF LAW THAT INTEREST U/S 234B IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN ALL CASES, PARTICULARLY IN CASES WHERE THE NON-RESIDENT ASSESSEE/PAYEE/DEDUCTEE HAS PLAYED A ROLE IN INDUCI NG NON-DEDUCTION OR SHORT-DEDUCTION ON THE PART OF THE PAYER/DEDUCTOR. ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 5 3.3 THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO TAK E NOTE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF M/S MITSUBISHI [330 ITR 578, DEL] THAT THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSE/PAYEE/DEDUCTEE IN SHORT-DEDUCTION OR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX NEEDS TO BE ASCERTAINED BEFORE CLA IM REGARDING NON-LIABILITY TO INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT IS ACCEPTED, A PROPOSITION AFFIRMED SUBSEQUENTLY IN TH E CASE OF M/S ALCATEL LUCENT (JUDGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COUR T DATED 7.11.2013 IN ITA NO. 327 & ORS OF 2012) AND FOLLOWED BY ITAT DELHI IN THE ORDER DATED 13.06.201 4 IN THE CASE OF NORTEL NETWORK INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC [ITA NO. 4766/DEL/201] AND ORDER DATED II PACIFIC LTD & ORS [ITA NO. 5283/DEL/2010]. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT ALL THE APPEALS STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AS WELL AS IN THE C ASE OF AOP, WHEREIN EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTA TIVE HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NO N-RESIDENT COMPANY AND HAS OFFERED ITS REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF O NE CONTRACT ENTERED AS CONSORTIUM OF TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWA TER DRILLING INC. (TODDI), USA; AND SCHLUMBERGER ASIA S ERVICES LTD. (SALS), HONG KONG, WITH OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATI ON LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT HAS OFFERED ITS REVENUE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.66,08,27,503/- ON ACCOUNT OF CO NTRACT ENTERED WITH ONGC FOR THE CHARTER HIRE OF DEEP WATE R DRILLING UNIT RIG-DISCOVERER SEVEN SEAS ALONG WITH ITS CONSO RTIUM ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 6 MEMBER, M/S. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD. THE IN COME WAS OFFERED TO TAX U/S. 44BB (1) OF THE ACT AT 10% DEEM ED PROFIT RATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED FROM ONGC HAS BEEN REDUCED F ROM THE GROSS PROFIT WHILE WORKING THE PROFIT U/S.44BB. HOW EVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SUCH REIMBURSEMENT AGGR EGATING TO RS. 53,54,61,447/- SHOULD BE TAKEN AS PART OF GROSS REVENUE. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON PROTECTIVE B ASIS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS THE ADDIT ION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF AOP OF SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVI CES LTD. AND TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING INC. 5. LD. CIT (A) FOLLOWING THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 HELD THAT SINCE ALREADY ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF AOP, THEREFOR E, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2 008- 09 ALSO SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CA SE OF AOP AND PROTECTIVE IN THE CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE. LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT SINCE ALREADY APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAIN ST AOP, THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 7. WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF THE AOP HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH T HE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE U S. ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 7 WE REFER TO CIRCULAR NO. 7/2016 DATED 07/03/16 ISSU ED BY CBDT, WHEREIN, CLARIFICATION REGARDING TAXABILITY O F CONSORTIUM MEMBERS HAS BEEN PROVIDED, WHICH READS A S UNDER:- A CONSORTIUM OF CONTRACTORS IS OFTEN FORMED TO IMPLEMENT LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, PARTICULAR LY IN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ('EPC') CONTRACTS AND TURNKEY PROJECTS. THE TAX AUTHORITIES IN MANY CASES HAVE TAKEN A POSITION THAT SUCH A CONSOR TIUM CONSTITUTES AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS (AOP') I.E. A SEPARATE ENTITY FOR CHARGING TAX. THE CLAIM OF TAXP AYERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS CONTRARY TO THIS VIEW. THIS H AS LED TO TAX DISPUTES PARTICULARLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE E ACH MEMBER OF THE CONSORTIUM, ALTHOUGH JOINTLY AND SEVE RALLY LIABLE TO THE CONTRACTEE, HAS A CLEAR DISTINCTION A ND ROLE IN SCOPE OF WORK, RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES OF THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS. 2. THE TERM AOP HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY DEFINED I N THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT'). THE ISSUE AS TO WHAT W OULD CONSTITUTE AN AOP WAS CONSIDERED BY THE APEX COURT IN SOME CASES. ALTHOUGH CERTAIN GUIDELINES WERE PRESCR IBED IN THIS REGARD, THE COURT OPINED THAT THERE IS NO F ORMULA OF UNIVERSAL APPLICATION SO AS TO CONCLUSIVELY DECI DE THE EXISTENCE OF AN AOP AND IT WOULD RATHER DEPEND UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE: IN TH E SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF THE EPC CONTRACTS/TURNKEY PROJE CTS, THERE ARE SEVERAL CONTRARY RULING OF VARIOUS COURTS ON WHAT CONSTITUTES AN AOP. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMIN ED. ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 8 WITH A VIEW TO AVOID TAX-DISPUTES AND TO HAVE CONSI STENCY IN APPROACH WHILE HANDLING THESE CASES, THE BOARD H AS DECIDED THAT A CONSORTIUM ARRANGEMENT FOR EXECUTING EPC/ TURNKEY CONTRACTS WHICH HAS THE FOLLOWING ATTR IBUTES MAY NOT BE TREATED AS AN AOP:- A. EACH MEMBER IS INDEPENDENTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EXECUTING ITS PART OF WORK THROUGH ITS OWN RESOURCE S AND ALSO BEARS THE RISK OF ITS SCOPE OF WORK I.E. THERE IS A CLEAR DEMARCATION IN THE WORK AND COSTS BETWEEN THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS AND EACH MEMBER INCURS EXPENDITURE ONLY IN ITS SPECIFIED AREA OF WORK: B. EACH MEMBER EARNS PROFIT OR INCURS LOSSES, BASED ON PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT FALLING STRICTLY WITHIN ITS SCOPE OF WORK. HOWEVER, CONSORTIUM MEMBERS MAY SHAR E CONTRACT PRICE AT GROSS LEVEL ONLY TO FACILITATE CO NVENIENCE IN BILLING: C. THE MEN AND MATERIALS USED FOR ANY AREA OF WORK ARE UNDER THE RISK AND CONTROL OF RESPECTIVE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS; 4.1 THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSORTIUM IS NOT UNIFIED AND COMMON MANAGEMENT IS ONLY FOR THE INTER -SE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE 4.1. ON A DETAILED COMPA RISON OF VARIOUS CLAUSES OF TWO AGREEMENTS DATED 04/05/03 , 28/05/03, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT DATED 04/05/03 IS THE BASIS ON WHICH THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF WORK HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 9 CONSORTIUM MEMBERS. THE ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS ARE GOVERNED BY CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT DATED 04/05/03, WHEREAS MOU DATED 28/05/0 3 HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY CONSORTIUM MEMBERS SOLELY FOR ONGC AND IS AS PER FORMAT OF ONCG, THEREFORE CONTAI NED CLAUSES RELEVANT ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF APPLICATION O F BID WITH ONGC. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IN CASE OF ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS THE AGREEMENT DATED 04/05/03 ARE ENFORCEABLE INDEPENDENTLY. 4.2. FURTHER FROM THE AGREEMENT DATED 06/11/03 ENTE RED INTO BY CONSORTIUM WITH ONGC MAKES IT CLEAR THAT CONSORTIUM MEMBERS BEING SLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES L TD. AND TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING PVT. LTD . HAD DISTINCT AND SEPARATE SCOPE OF WORK BY VIRTUE OF TH EIR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SPHERES OF WORK. SLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD WAS TO PROVIDE VARIOUS SERVICES LIKE LOGGING WHILE DRILLING, CEMENTING SER VICES, WIRE LINE LOGGING SERVICES, MUD LOGGING SERVICES AN D MUD SERVICES WHEREAS TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRIL LING PVT. LTD. WAS TO PROVIDE DRILLING UNIT WHICH IS MAJ OR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDED ON CHARTER HIRE BASIS AL ONG WITH PERSONNEL TO OPERATE THE SAID DRILLING UNIT. 4.3. IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS BY ONGC IT IS FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT EACH CONSORTIUM MEMBER RAISED SEPARAT E INVOICES, ON WHICH ONGC SHALL HONOUR BOTH THE INVOI CES INDEPENDENTLY. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT DO BOTH THE MEMBERS HAVE AGREED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BOOKS OF ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 10 ACCOUNTS WHICH FURTHER EMPHASISES THEIR INDEPENDENT ROLE OF WORK WITH ONGC THOUGH WORK HAS TO BE PERFORMED JOINTLY. FURTHER IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO MEMBER HAD ANY ROLE TO PLAY IN RESPECT OF THE SCOPE OF WORK AL LOCATED TO THE OTHER- MEMBER AND NEITHER OF THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS SHARED ANY COSTS NOR RISK AND HAD MANAGED THEIR OWN DELIVERABLES. 4.4. LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE UPON DECISION OF H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF LINDE AG LINDE ENGINEER ING DIVISION VS. DDI REPORTED IN 365 ITR 1 WHEREIN IDEN TICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY HONBLE COURT. 4.5. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF H ONBLE 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 OFFSHOR E DEEPWATER DRILLING PVT. LTD., DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN AOP. 4.6. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD.AO HAS TAXED THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 115 A AT 10%. SECTION 115A PRESUPPOSES THE RENDERING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES BY ASSESSEE AND NOW WITH THE DECISION OF H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ONGC LTD (SUPRA) THE I SSUE STANDS SETTLED AS ON DATE, REGARDING PROSPECTING FO R OR EXTRACTION OR PRODUCTION OF MINERAL OIL IS NOT TO B E TREATED AS TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPLANATI ON 2 TO SECTION 9 (1) (VII) AND WOULD RATHER BE COVERED BY SECTION 44 BB OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 2133/DEL/2016 TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPW ATER DRILLING INC. 11 4.7. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION TRANSOCEAN OFFS HORE DEEPWATER 'DRILLING INC, BEING CONSORTIUM MEMBER HA S RIGHTLY OFFERED TO TAX THE RECEIPTS U/S 44BB IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4.8. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW GROUNDS 1-2 R AISED BY ASSESSEE. 5. SINCE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS FOR THE INSTANT YEAR, FO LLOWING THE SAME RATIO, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/09/2021. SD/- SD/- (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/09/2021 *SUBODH KUMAR, SR. PS* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR