Case Law Details

Case Name : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs CIT (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No. 731/2007
Date of Judgement/Order : 01/07/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (998)

Issue before court:

  • Whether the amounts paid by the ONGC to the non-resident assessees /foreign companies for providing various services in connection with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil is chargeable to tax as “fees for technical services” under Section 44D read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or will such payments be taxable on a presumptive basis under Section 44BB of the Act.

Brief facts:

  • The appellant-ONGC has been assessed in a representative capacity on behalf of the different foreign companies with whom it had executed separate agreements for services to be rendered by such companies in connection with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils by ONGC.
  • The assessing authority took the view that the assessments should be made under Section 44D of the Act and not Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act being engaged in mining activities.. CIT (A) and the ITAT allowed appeals in favour of assessee. Revenue took the matter before High Court of Uttrakhand.
  • High Court overturned the view taken by the CIT (A) & ITAT and held the payments made to be liable for assessment under Section 44D of the Act. Aggrieved, the ONGC has filed the present group of appeals.
  • Hon’ble High Court made an analysis of clauses of the contract made between ONGC and foreign company and it had come to light before the High Court that the contract between the parties visualized operation of the oil rigs including drilling operations by the personnel made available under the contracts/agreements, which fact was further stated on affidavit before the High Court by an authorized official of the ONGC in the following terms.

“That under the said agreement, Foramer was required, through its personnel listed in Exhibit-A to the said agreement, to carry out inter-alia the drilling operations specified in clause 4.3 to 4.10 of the said agreement.”

Contention of the revenue:

  • CBDT Circular has no relevance to the present case inasmuch as the agreements between ONGC and the non-resident companies made it abundantly clear that what is paid to the non-resident company are fees for technical services rendered.
  • The primary service rendered by the non-resident companies on the basis of the agreements is not for prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil but various ancillary services like training of personnel etc. which may have a somewhat remote connection with the business of prospecting, exploration or production of mineral oils.

Contention of the assessee:

  • The eventual test is one of pith and substance of the agreement, namely, whether the works contemplated or services to be rendered under the agreement is directly and inextricably linked with the prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil.
  • It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the agreements in question satisfy the above test for which purpose the appellants have categorized the different contracts under 8 heads.
  • The instruction/Circular dated 22.10.1990 issued by the CBDT was binding on the primary authority on the ratio of the decision of this Court in K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Others.
  • It has been further pointed that even under the provisions of Section 3D of the Oil Fields (Regulation and Development) Act 1948 a mining lease means a lease granted for the purposes of searching for, winning, working, getting, making merchandisable, carrying away or disposing of mineral oils or for the purpose connected therewith and such a lease includes an exploring or prospecting lease.
  • Rendering any service in connection with prospecting and extraction is an integral part of mining and that the expression “mining” in the Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act, in the absence of any definition under the Income Tax Act, has to be understood as per the provisions of the Oil Fields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 read with the Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 1959.

Held by the court:

  • Under the agreement payment to NRI assessee was required to be made at the rate of 3450 USD per day and that the contract clearly contemplated rendering of technical services by personnel of the non-resident company.
  • The contract did not mention that the personnel of the non-resident company was also carrying out the work of drilling of wells and as the company had received fees for rendering service the payments made were liable to be taxed under the provisions of Section 44D of the Act.
  • Under Section 44BB(1) the profit and gains from such business of non-resident providing services with plant & machinery used in prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils chargeable to tax is to be calculated at a sum equal to 10% of the aggregate of the amounts paid or payable to such non-resident assessee as mentioned in Sub-section (2).
  • Explanation (a) to Section 44D however specifies that “fees for technical services” as mentioned in Section 44D would have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to Clause (vii) of Section 9(1).
  • It is the proximity of the works contemplated under an agreement, executed with a non-resident assessee or a foreign company, with mining activity or mining operations that would be crucial for the determination of the question whether the payments made under such an agreement to the non-resident assessee or the foreign company is to be assessed under Section 44BB or Section 44D of the Act. The test of pith and substance of the agreement commends to us as reasonable for acceptance.
  • The pith and substance of each of the contracts/agreements is inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil. The dominant purpose of each of such agreement is for prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils though there may be certain ancillary works contemplated thereunder. If that be so, we will have no hesitation in holding that the payments made by ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the said contracts is more appropriately assessable under the provisions of Section 44BB and not Section 44D of the Act.

Conclusion:

In this particular case court has to decide the nature of services rendered by the foreign companies as per agreement between them. For the above Hon’ble court has examined details of all contracts which show that the pith and substance of each of the contracts/agreements is inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil. On the facts and circumstances of the case that the payments made by ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the said contracts is more appropriately assessable under the provisions of Section 44BB and not Section 44D of the Act.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (27874)
Type : Judiciary (12057)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts