REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2007

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED ...APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ... RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.729 OF 2007, 733 OF 2007, 736 OF 2007, 737 OF 2007, 738

OF 2007, 740 OF 2007, 741 OF 2007, 6008 OF 2007, 6016 OF 2007, 6023 OF

2007, 925 OF 2008, 1239 OF 2008, 1240 OF 2008, 1514 OF 2008, 1515 OF 2008,

1516 OF 2008, 1517 OF 2008, 1518 OF 2008, 1519 OF 2008, 1520 OF 2008, 1521

OF 2008, 1522 OF 2008, 1523 OF 2008, 1524 OF 2008, 1527 OF 2008, 1528 OF

2008, 1529 OF 2008, 1531 OF 2008, 1532 OF 2008, 1533 OF 2008, 1535 OF 2008,

2008 OF 2008, 2012 OF 2008, 4321 OF 2008, 7226 OF 2008, 7227 OF 2008, 7230

OF 2008, 2794 OF 2009, 2795 OF 2009, 2796 OF 2009, 2797 OF 2009, 1722 OF

2010 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6174 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The issue that arise for consideration in this group of appeals is

common and may be summarized as follows.

“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”?

2. 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.

3. The primary/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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Appellate

Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the views

of the assessing authorities leading to the institution of separate appeals

before the High Court of Uttrakhand in respect of each of the assessments

made for the years in question. The High Court considered the facts of

Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2007 (Income Tax Appeal No. 239 of 2001 before the

High Court) as the lead case and on the grounds and reasons assigned in the

impugned order dated 15.12.2005, the High Court overturned the view taken

by the Appellate Commissioner and the learned Tribunal 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.

4. We have heard Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellant and Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for

the Revenue.

5. As the facts of Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2007 corresponding to I.T.A.

No. 239 of 2001 has been considered in detail by the High Court and the

view expressed in the said proceeding have been followed in all the other

appeals before the High Court, it may be necessary to notice in detail the

said facts arising in the appeal in question.

6. The appellant-ONGC and a non resident/foreign company one M/s.

Foramer France had entered into an agreement by which the non-resident

company had agreed to make available supervisory staff and personnel having

experience and expertise for operation and management of drilling rigs

Sagar Jyoti and Sagar Pragati for the assessment year 1985-86 and the

drilling rig Sagar Ratna for the assessment year 1986-87. Faced with the

different views taken by the authorities under the Act, as mentioned above,

the High Court proceeded to analyse the different clauses of the contract

between the parties. A consideration of such analysis made by the High

Court would go to show that 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.”

Despite the above, the High Court took the view that under the agreement

payment to M/s. Foramer France 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.

Specifically, taking the view that 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. As already noticed, in the rest of the appeals

before the High Court the aforesaid decision dated 15.12.2005 passed in

I.T.A. No. 239 of 2001 was followed on the basis that the facts in all the

appeals were similar to those involved in I.T.A. No. 239 of 2001.

7. It will be convenient and in fact necessary for the purposes of

present adjudication to take a careful note of the provisions of Sections

44BB, 44D and also clause (vii) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short the ‘Act’).

“44BB. Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with

the business of exploration, etc., of mineral oils.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections

28 to 41 and sections 43 and 43A, in the case of an assessee, being a non-

resident, engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in

connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be

used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils,

a sum equal to ten per cent of the aggregate of the amounts specified in

sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such

business chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or

profession" :

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in a case where the

provisions of section 42 or section 44D or [section 44DA or] section

115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains

or any other income referred to in those sections.

(2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following,

namely:—

(a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the

assessee or to any person on his behalf 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

or production of, mineral oils in India; and

(b) the amount received or deemed to be received in India by or on behalf

of 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 or production of mineral oils

outside India.

[(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), an assessee

may claim lower profits and gains than the profits and gains specified in

that sub-section, if he keeps and maintains such books of account and other

documents as required under sub-section (2) of section 44AA and gets his

accounts audited and furnishes a report of such audit as required

under section 44AB, and thereupon the Assessing Officer shall proceed to

make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee under sub-

section (3) of section 143 and determine the sum payable by, or refundable

to, the assessee.]

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(i) "plant" includes ships, aircraft, vehicles, drilling units,

scientific apparatus and equipment used for the purposes of the said

business;

(ii) "mineral oil" includes petroleum and natural gas.]”

“44D. Special provision for computing income by way of royalties, etc., in

the case of foreign companies.-

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 44C,

in the case of an assessee, being a foreign company,—

(a) the deductions admissible under the said sections in computing the

income by way of royalty or fees for technical services received [from

Government or an Indian concern in pursuance of an agreement made by the

foreign company with Government or with the Indian concern] before the 1st

day of April, 1976, shall not exceed in the aggregate twenty per cent of

the gross amount of such royalty or fees as reduced by so much of the gross

amount of such royalty as consists of lump sum consideration for the

transfer outside India of, or the imparting of information outside India in

respect of, any data, documentation, drawing or specification relating to

any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

mark or similar property;

(b) no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be

allowed under any of the said sections in computing the income by way of

royalty or fees for technical services received [from Government or an

Indian concern in pursuance of an agreement made by the foreign company

with Government or with the Indian concern] after the 31st day of March,

1976 [but before the 1st day of April, 2003];

(d) [***]

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(a) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in

[Explanation 2] to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9;

(b) "foreign company" shall have the same meaning as in section 80B;

"royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of

sub-section (1) of section 9;

(d) royalty received [from Government or an Indian concern in pursuance

of an agreement made by a foreign company with Government or with the

Indian concern] after the 31st day of March, 1976, shall be deemed to have

been received in pursuance of an agreement made before the 1st day of

April, 1976, if such agreement is deemed, for the purposes of the proviso

to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9, to have been made before

the 1st day of April, 1976.]”

“9. (1) (vii) income by way of fees for technical services payable by—

(a) the Government ; or

(b) a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in

respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such

person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income

from any source outside India; or

of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person

in India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any

source in India :

[Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in relation to

any income by way of fees for technical services payable in pursuance of an

agreement made before the 1st day of April, 1976, and approved by the

Central Government.]

[Explanation 1.—For the purposes of the foregoing proviso, an agreement

made on or after the 1st day of April, 1976, shall be deemed to have been

made before that date if the agreement is made in accordance with proposals

approved by the Central Government before that date.]

[Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "fees for technical

services" means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration)

for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services

(including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but

does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or

like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be

income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Salaries".]

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any pension

payable outside India to a person residing permanently outside India shall

not be deemed to accrue or arise in India, if the pension is payable to a

person referred to in article 314 of the Constitution or to a person who,

having been appointed before the 15th day of August, 1947, to be a Judge of

the Federal Court or of a High Court within the meaning of the Government

of India Act, 1935, continues to serve on or after the commencement of the

Constitution as a Judge in India.

[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for

the purposes of this section, income of a non-resident shall be deemed to

accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of

sub-section (1) and shall be included in the total income of the non-

resident, whether or not,—

(i) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business

connection in India; or

(ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India.]”

8. A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act goes to show

that under Section 44BB(1) in case of a non-resident providing services or

facilities in connection with or supplying plant and machinery used or to

be used in prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils the profit

and gains from such business 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). On the other hand,

Section 44D contemplates that if the income of a foreign company with which

the government or an Indian concern had an agreement executed before

1.4.1976 or on any date thereafter the computation of income would be made

as contemplated under the aforesaid Section 44D. 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). The said explanation as quoted above defines

“fees for technical services” to mean consideration for rendering of any

managerial, technical or consultancy services. However, the later part of

the explanation excludes from consideration for the purposes of the

expression i.e. “fees for technical services” any payment received for

construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient

or consideration which would be chargeable under the head “salaries”. Fees

for technical services, therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid explanation

will not include payments made in connection with a mining project.

9. Before the High Court, a Circular No. 1862 dated 22.10.1990 having a

bearing on the subject was placed for consideration by the appellant-

assessee. The aforesaid instruction may be conveniently reproduced herein

below.

“Subject: Definition of “fees for technical services” in Explanation to

Section 9(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whether prospecting for or

extraction of production of mineral oil are “mining” operations-

clarification regarding.

The expression “fees for technical services” has been defined in

Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as under:

“Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "fees for technical

services" means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration)

for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services

(including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but

does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or

like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be

income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Salaries".

2. The question whether prospecting for, or extraction or production of,

mineral oil can be termed as ‘mining operations, was referred to the

Attorney General of India for his opinion. The Attorney General has opined

that such operations are mining operations and the expressions ‘mining

project’ or ‘like projects’ occurring in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (ii)

of the Income Tax Act would cover rendering of services like imparting of

training and carrying out drilling operations for exploration or

exploitation of oil and natural gas.

3. In view of the above opinion, the consideration for such services will

not be treated as fees for technical services for the purpose of

Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Payments

for such services to a foreign company, therefore, will be income

chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 44BB of the Income-tax

Act, 1961 and not under the special provision for the taxation of fees for

technical services contained in section 115A read with section 44D of the

Income-tax Act, 1961.

4. A copy of the statement of the case dated 16.3.1990 (without annexures)

and a copy of the Attorney General’s opinion dated 13.5.90 are enclosed.

5. These instructions may brought to the notice of all the officers in your

region.

[F.No.500/6/89-FTD dt.22.10.90 from CBDT]”

10. Before us the opinion of the learned Attorney General has been placed

by the learned counsel for the appellants at great length to contend that

the views expressed by the learned Attorney which had been accepted by the

CBDT were based on an exhaustive consideration of the provisions of the

Mines Act, 1952 and the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development)

Act, 1957 read with the relevant Entries in the Union and the State List in

the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is urged that 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 which may be conveniently set out at this stage hereinbelow.

Carrying out seismic surveys and drilling for oil and gas

2. Services starting/re-starting/enhancing production of oil and gas

from wells

3. Services for prospecting for exploration of oil and or gas

4. Planning and supervision of repair of wells

Repair, Inspection or Equipment used in the exploration, extraction or

production of oil and gas

6. Imparting Training

Consultancy in regard to exploration of oil and gas

8. Supply, Installation, etc. of software used for oil and gas

exploration”

11. It is also urged on behalf of the appellants that 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[1]. It has been

further pointed on behalf of the appellants 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. Reference has also been

made to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 1959 framed under Section 5 of

the aforesaid Act. Under Rule 4 of the said Rules no person can prospect

for petroleum except pursuant to a Petroleum Exploration License (PEL)

granted under the Rules and no person can mine petroleum except in

pursuance of a Petroleum Mining License (PML) granted under the Rules. It

is pointed out that under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959 a petroleum mining

license (PML) entitles the licensee to carry out construction and

maintenance in and on such land, works, buildings, plants, waterways,

roads, pipelines etc. as may be necessary for full enjoyment of the PML.

On the said basis it is argued that 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.

12. Opposing the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants, Shri

Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for the Revenue has urged that

the opinion of the Attorney General relied upon and the 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.

Though such services may have some connection with the prospecting,

extraction or production of mineral oil, 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. Learned counsel for the revenue has even suggested that if

it is held that the High Court ought to have examined each agreement or

contract to find out its real purpose and intent the revenue would have no

objection if the matters are remanded for a complete exercise to be made on

the above basis.

13. The Income Tax Act does not define the expressions “mines” or

“minerals”. The said expressions are found defined and explained in the

Mines Act, 1952 and the Oil Fields (Development and Regulation) Act 1948.

While construing the somewhat pari materia expressions appearing in the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 regard must be had

to the provisions of Entries 53 and 54 of List I and Entry 22 of List II of

the 7th Schedule to the Constitution to understand the exclusion of mineral

oils from the definition of minerals in Section 3(a) of the 1957 Act.

Regard must also be had to the fact that mineral oils is separately defined

in Section 3(b) of the 1957 Act to include natural gas and petroleum in

respect of which Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction under Entry 53 of

List I of the 7th Schedule and had enacted an earlier legislation i.e. Oil

Fields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948. Reading Section 2(j) and

2(jj) of the Mines Act, 1952 which define mines and minerals and the

provisions of the Oil Fields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948

specifically relating to prospecting and exploration of mineral oils,

exhaustively referred to earlier, it is abundantly clear that drilling

operations for the purpose of production of petroleum would clearly amount

to a mining activity or a mining operation. Viewed thus, 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. Equally important is the fact

that the CBDT had accepted the said test and had in fact issued a circular

as far back as 22.10.1990 to the effect that mining operations and the

expressions “mining projects” or “like projects” occurring in Explanation 2

to Section 9(1) of the Act would cover rendering of service like imparting

of training and carrying out drilling operations for exploration of and

extraction of oil and natural gas and hence payments made under such

agreement to a non-resident/foreign company would be chargeable to tax

under the provisions of Section 44BB and not Section 44D of the Act. We

do not see how any other view can be taken if the works or services

mentioned under a particular agreement is directly associated or

inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of

mineral oil. Keeping in mind the above provision, we have looked into each

of the contracts involved in the present group of cases and find that the

brief description of the works covered under each of the said contracts as

culled out by the appellants and placed before the Court is correct. The

said details are set out below.

|S. No. |Civil |Work covered under the contract |

| |Appeal | |

| |No. | |

| |4321 |Drilling of exploration wells and carrying |

| | |out seismic surveys for exploratory drilling.|

| |740 |Drilling, furnishing personnel for manning, |

| | |maintenance and operation of drilling rig and|

| | |training of personnel. |

| |731 |Drilling, furnishing personnel for manning, |

| | |maintenance and operation of drilling rig and|

| | |training of personnel. |

| | | |

| |1722 |Furnishing supervisory staff with expertise |

| | |in operation and management of Drilling unit.|

| |729 |Capping including subduing of well, fire |

| | |fighting. |

| |738 |Capping including subduing of well, fire |

| | |fighting. |

| |1528 |Analysis of data to prepare job design, |

| | |procedure for execution and details regarding|

| | |monitoring. |

| |1532 |Study for selection of enhanced Oil Recovery |

| | |processes and conceptual design of Pilot |

| | |Tests. |

| |1520 |Engineering and technical support to ONGC in |

| | |implementation of Cyclic Steam Stimulation in|

| | |Heavy Oil Wells. |

| |2794 |Assessment and processing of seismic data |

| | |along with engineering and technical support |

| | |in implementation of Cyclic Steam |

| | |Stimulation. |

| |1524 |Conducting reservoir stimulation studies in |

| | |association with personnel of ONGC. |

| |1535 |Laboratory testing under simulated reservoir |

| | |conditions. |

| |1514 |Consultancy for optimal exploitation of |

| | |hydrocarbon resources. |

| |2797 |Consultancy for all aspects of Coal Bed |

| | |Methane. |

| |6174 |Analysis of data of wells to prepare a job |

| | |design. |

| | | |

| |1517 |Geological study of the area and analysis of |

| | |seismic information reports to design 2 |

| | |dimensional seismic surveys. |

| |7226 |Opinion on hydrocarbon resources and |

| | |foreseeable potential. |

| |7227 |Opinion on hydrocarbon resources and |

| | |foreseeable potential. |

| |7230 |Opinion on hydrocarbon resources and |

| | |foreseeable potential. |

| |6016 |Opinion on hydrocarbon resources and |

| | |foreseeable potential. |

| |6008 |Evaluation of ultimate resource potential and|

| | |presentations outside India in connection |

| | |with promotional activities for Joint Venture|

| | |Exploration program. |

| |1531 |Review of sub-surface well data, provide |

| | |repair plan of wells and supervise repairs. |

| |733 |Repair of gas turbine, gas control system and|

| | |inspection of gas turbine and generator. |

| |741 |Repair and inspection of turbines. |

| |737 |Repair, inspection and overhauling of |

| | |turbines. |

| |736 |Inspection, engine performance evaluation, |

| | |instrument calibration and inspection of far |

| | |turbines. |

| |1522 |Replacement of choke and kill consoles on |

| | |drilling rigs. |

| |1521 |Inspection of gas generators. |

| |1515 |Inspection of rigs. |

| |2012 |Inspection of generator. |

| |1240 |Inspection of existing control system and |

| | |deputing engineer to attend to any problem |

| | |arising in the machines. |

| |1529 |Inspection of drilling rig and verification |

| | |of reliability of control systems in the |

| | |drilling rig. |

| |2008 |Expert advice on the device to clean insides |

| | |of a pipeline. |

| |2795 |Feasibility study of rig to assess its |

| | |remaining useful life and to carry out |

| | |structural alterations. |

| |925 |Engineering analysis of rig. |

| |1519 |Imparting training on cased hold production |

| | |log evaluation and analysis. |

| |1533 |Training on well control. |

| |1518 |Training on implementation of Six Sigma |

| | |concepts. |

| |1516 |Training on implementation of Six Sigma |

| | |concepts. |

| |6023 |Training on Drilling project management. |

| |2796 |Training in Safety Rating System and |

| | |assistance in development and audit of Safety|

| | |Management System. |

| |1239 |To develop technical specification for 3D |

| | |Seismic API modules of work and to prepare |

| | |bid packages. |

| |1527 |Supply supervision and installation of |

| | |software which is used for analysis of flow |

| | |rate of mineral oil to determine reservoir |

| | |conditions. |

| |1523 |Supply, installation and familiarization of |

| | |software for processing seismic data. |

The above facts would indicate that 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. On the basis of the said

conclusion reached by us, we allow the appeals under consideration by

setting aside the orders of the High Court passed in each of the cases

before it and restoring the view taken by the learned Appellate

Commissioner as affirmed by the learned Tribunal.

14. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed with no order as to the

costs.

…….…………………………...J.

[RANJAN GOGOI]

…………………………….……J.

[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE]

NEW DELHI;

JULY 01, 2015.

-----------------------

[1] (1981) 4 SCC 173