Service Tax Excluded from Income Under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961), Rules Uttarakhand High Court

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited (High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital)

Income Tax Appeal No. 30 of 2015

Date: 10th February 2025

Key Takeaways

• Service tax reimbursements are not taxable: The court confirmed that amounts reimbursed for service tax paid by the assessee do not form part of the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
• Consistency with other High Courts: The Uttarakhand High Court followed the Delhi High Court’s decision in Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 130 (Delhi) and its own earlier decision in M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 156.
• Section 234B (of Income Tax Act, 1961) issue remanded: The question of whether interest under Section 234B (of Income Tax Act, 1961) applies was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
• Favorable to assessees in oil and gas sector: This decision is significant for companies providing services in connection with oil and gas exploration, as it clarifies that service tax reimbursements are not to be included in their taxable income under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

Issue

Should service tax reimbursed to the assessee be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of computing income under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961)?

Facts

• Parties: The appellant is the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), and the respondent is Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited.
• Background: Baker Hughes provided services related to oil and gas exploration in India and was reimbursed for service tax paid to the government.
• Dispute: The tax authorities wanted to include the reimbursed service tax in Baker Hughes’ taxable income under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961), while Baker Hughes argued it should be excluded.
• Procedural history: The matter had already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court and by the Full Bench, which had ruled in favor of the assessee on similar issues.

Arguments

Appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax)

• Argued that the service tax reimbursed to Baker Hughes should be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

Respondent (Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited)

• Contended that service tax is a statutory levy collected on behalf of the government and reimbursed by the service recipient (ONGC in this case).
• Asserted that such reimbursement is not income for providing services and should not be included in the taxable amount under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

Key Legal Precedents

• Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 130 (Delhi): The Delhi High Court held that reimbursement of service tax is not an amount paid for providing services and should not be included in the gross receipts for tax purposes.
• M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 156: The Uttarakhand High Court had previously taken a similar view as the Delhi High Court.
• Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961): Deals with the computation of profits and gains in connection with the business of providing services or facilities in the oil and gas sector.
• Section 234B (of Income Tax Act, 1961): Relates to interest for defaults in payment of advance tax.

The court emphasized that there was no justifiable reason to depart from these precedents and followed the established legal position.

Judgement

• Decision: The court ruled in favor of Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited.
• Reasoning: The court agreed with the earlier decisions that service tax reimbursements are not part of the income for the purposes of Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961). The court found no reason to differ from the Delhi High Court’s view and its own previous decisions.
• Orders:
• The questions of law regarding the inclusion of service tax under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961) were answered against the Revenue (tax authorities).
• The issue of interest liability under Section 234B (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present its case.
• The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

FAQs

Q1: Does this judgment mean service tax reimbursements are never taxable under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961)?

A: Yes, according to this judgment, service tax reimbursements are not to be included in the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

Q2: What happens to the issue of interest under Section 234B (of Income Tax Act, 1961)?

A: The court sent this issue back to the Assessing Officer to decide, based on the finding that the amounts in question fall under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

Q3: Why did the court follow the Delhi High Court’s decision?

A: The court emphasized the need for consistency in the interpretation of central laws and found no reason to differ from the Delhi High Court’s well-reasoned judgment.

Q4: Who benefits from this decision?

A: Service providers in the oil and gas sector, like Baker Hughes, benefit as they are not required to include service tax reimbursements in their taxable income under Section 44BB (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

Q5: Is this the final word on the matter?

A: While this is a strong precedent in Uttarakhand, the issue could still be taken up to the Supreme Court or be subject to legislative change in the future.