Case Law Details
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
6.1. We are of the view that the case of the applicant neatly fits into Section 44BB and all the ingredients of that section are satisfied. To attract the first part of section 44BB, the non-resident must be
(a) engaged in the business of providing services or facilities;
(b) such provision of services/ facilities must be ‘in connection with’ the prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils.
Both these ingredients are present in relation to the activities undertaken by the applicant in India. Firstly, it does not admit of any doubt that the applicant is engaged in the business of providing services (technical services) to the oil sector industries. It is not some sporadic or isolated activities that are being carried on by the applicant. The applicant claims to have many clients in 8.India and it has been engaged in the said activities since many years. In fact, it has come to light at the time of hearing that the applicant has been filing returns and is being assessed to tax from 2002-03 on wards and even for the year 2009-10 return has been filed. It is an undisputed and undeniable fact that the activities or operations of the applicant in India have the characteristics of ‘business’ and the applicant is engaged in the said business in India and other countries. The next question is whether the applicant provides services in connection with the prospecting for or extraction of mineral oils. Here again, there is hardly any room for doubt. The expression ‘in connection with’ is important and has to be construed to have expansive meaning. While explaining the meaning of similar and inter-changeable expressions viz. “pertaining to” and “in relation to”, the Supreme Court observed in the case of Doy pack Systems Pvt .Ltd. 48. The expression “in relation to” (so also “pertaining to”), is a very broad expression which presupposes another subject matter. These are words of comprehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance depending on the context, see State Wakf Board vs. Abdul Aziz (AIR 1968 Madras 79, 81 paragraphs 8 and 10, following and approving Nitai Charan Bagchi vs. Suresh Chandra Paul (66 C.W.N. 767), Shyam Lal vs. M. Shayamlal (A.I.R. 1933 All. 649) and 76 Corpus Juris Secundum 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reason of the above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 * 1988 (36) ELT 201 (SC) 9.where it is stated that the term “relate” is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned that “relating to” has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to “concerning with” and “pertaining to”. The expression “pertaining to” is an expression of expansion and not of contraction.”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
