DCIT (IT) 4(3)(2), MUMBAI V. WEATHERFORD DRILLING INTERNATIONAL BVI LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2556/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4965 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA Nos.2556 to 2558/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 to 2017-18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA Nos. 2556 to 2558/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 to 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle – 4(3)(2), Mumbai ............................Appellant Vs Weatherford Drilling International BVI Ltd. ............................Respondent Unit No. 71 & 74, Kalpataru Square Kondivita Lane Off, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 [PAN: AAACW 7377 F] Appearances by Milind Chavan for the appellant Mayur Haria for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : April 04, 2022 Date of pronouncement : April 07, 2022 ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of these appeals, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned CIT(A)-58, Mumbai in the matter of assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18 2. Grievances, which are common in all the three appeals raised by the Assessing Officer is as follows:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in excluding service tax from the amount paid or payable to, received or receivable by the assessee on account of the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction ITA Nos.2556 to 2558/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 to 2017-18 Page 2 of 3 or production of, mineral oils in India for the purpose of determining presumptive profit u/s.44BB of the Act?” 3. As learned representatives fairly agree, the issue in the appeal is covered, in favour of the assessee, by several decisions of Hon’ble High Courts, including in the cases of DIT Vs Mitchell Drilling International Pvt Ltd [(2015) 62 taxmann.24 (Del)], DIT Vs Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd [(2019) 104 taxmann.353 (Uttarakhand FB)] and PCIT Vs Boskalis International- Dredging International [24 ITXA 55-17 (Bom)]. The conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A), which are in harmony with the views so expressed by Hon’ble Courts above- including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cannot be faulted. 4. We, therefore, see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the several decisions of Hon’ble High Courts. Respectfully following the same, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 5. In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 7 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- Sandeep Singh Karhail Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 7 th day of April, 2022 Roshani, Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The Appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order True Copy Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai benches, Mumbai