The officer has applied s.44BBB to the whole contract value in the year the turnkey power project was completed. Can he do that?
No. Section 44BBB is a deeming provision that charges ten per cent of the amount paid or payable to the foreign company during the year. Unless an amount is paid or payable in the previous year, there is nothing on which the ten per cent can operate, and the completion of the contract in that year does not let the officer aggregate payments received in earlier years.
Decided by the High Court (D. Murugesan J and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja J) on 2010-01-05, reported as Tax Case (Appeal) No. 571 of 2004 (High Court of Judicature at Madras), against ITAT Chennai 'A' Bench order dated 23 February 2004 in ITA No. 654/Mds/97. It bears on section 44BBB, section 143(3), section 143(1)(a), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Presumptive Taxation & Audit and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
This is the only decision I could retrieve that actually construes s.44BBB, and it does so on the most basic question — the year of charge. The section was inserted by the Finance Act 1989 with effect from 1 April 1990 and applies from AY 1990-91, so a contract straddling that date raises exactly this problem: the Revenue wants to catch the whole contract at completion, and the section will not carry that weight. The same reasoning answers the wider point that a presumptive charge cannot be enlarged beyond its own conditions. Read the section text in the judgment as the version in force for AY 1994-95, not as the current law: s.44BBB has been amended since, and the judgment's own extract of the section differs from the CBDT circular it quotes, which adds the condition that the project be financed under an international aid programme.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee is a non-resident foreign company headquartered at Legnano, Italy, with a project office at Chennai established from 1 October 1981 and registered with the Registrar of Companies with Reserve Bank permission. Under contract dated 8 June 1981 with Neyveli Lignite Corporation it undertook unloading, erection, testing and commissioning of three steam turbine generators with ancillaries. Following Rule 10 of the Income-tax Rules the Assessing Officer had, for AY 1982-83 to AY 1993-94, closed the assessments as NA on the footing that profit or loss would be determined on completion of the entire contract, and the assessee accepted that; but for AY 1988-89 and AY 1989-90 the returned losses had been accepted and computed. The units were provisionally taken over by NLC on 28 September 1986, 8 May 1987 and 23 April 1988, guarantee obligations expired by 23 April 1989 and the bank guarantees were returned by 30 April 1989. The erection invoice was raised on 16 April 1988 and all bills were settled before 30 April 1990. Of the total Rs 4,90,45,132.72 received, Rs 3,02,10,878.21 was received in AY 1988-89 and AY 1989-90 and the balance in AY 1986-87, 1987-88, 1990-91 and 1991-92. For AY 1994-95 the assessee filed a consolidated profit and loss account for 1 January 1981 to 31 March 1994 showing a net loss of Rs 5,80,69,876 and returned nil income. Relying on the assessee's letter of 24 January 1995 stating that the contract had come to an end on 5 November 1993, the Assessing Officer applied s.44BBB to the entire Rs 4,90,45,132 and charged Rs 49,04,510 as deemed profit. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The appeal was dismissed and the questions answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Section 44BBB is a deeming provision under which ten per cent of the amount paid or payable to the assessee is deemed to be profits; unless the amount is paid or payable during the year, the Revenue cannot levy ten per cent on the gross amount. On the concurrent findings that nothing was paid or payable during the accounting year and that the entire Rs 4,90,45,132 had been received in years long before AY 1994-95, the Assessing Officer was not justified in aggregating the payments and charging ten per cent in the year of completion. The mere completion of the contract does not suffice. The Assessing Officer was required instead to deal with the return of loss filed for AY 1994-95 by following the normal procedure, the CIT(A) having rightly observed that he was at liberty to scrutinise the loss and determine the amount to be carried forward (paragraph 7).
The Court set out s.44BBB as it stood, noted that it was inserted by the Finance Act 1989 with effect from 1 April 1990 and applies from AY 1990-91, and described it as a special provision for computing presumptive profits of foreign enterprises engaged in civil construction and erection, testing or commissioning in certain turnkey power projects. It set out CBDT Circular No. 550 dated 1 January 1990 explaining the object — simplification, given the difficulty of verifying expenses of non-residents whose books are kept abroad. On the facts, the authorities below had found that the works were completed by 30 April 1989, before s.44BBB came into force, and that payments at intermediate stages had been made against invoices supported by the purchaser's completion certificates. The Court treated as significant that the assessee had been regularly filing returns which had been processed, and that for AY 1988-89 and 1989-90 the assessments had not been closed on a no income no loss basis but on the computed loss. From these facts it was clear that no amount was received in the accounting year. Since the charge under the deeming provision requires an amount paid or payable during the accounting year, and unless the conditions stipulated in the deeming provision are satisfied the Revenue cannot invoke it, the findings of the authorities were based on valid material, were findings of fact and were not perverse.
From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that unless and until the amount is paid or payable to the assessee during the year, the revenue cannot levy 10% on the gross amount.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Section 44BBB is a deeming provision that charges ten per cent of the amount paid or payable to the foreign company during the year. Unless an amount is paid or payable in the previous year, there is nothing on which the ten per cent can operate, and the completion of the contract in that year does not let the officer aggregate payments received in earlier years. This was decided by the High Court (D. Murugesan J and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja J) and bears on section 44BBB, section 143(3), section 143(1)(a), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Tax Case (Appeal) No. 571 of 2004 (High Court of Judicature at Madras), against ITAT Chennai 'A' Bench order dated 23 February 2004 in ITA No. 654/Mds/97. This is the only decision I could retrieve that actually construes s.44BBB, and it does so on the most basic question — the year of charge. The section was inserted by the Finance Act 1989 with effect from 1 April 1990 and applies from AY 1990-91, so a contract straddling that date raises exactly this problem: the Revenue wants to catch the whole contract at completion, and the section will not carry that weight. The same reasoning answers the wider point that a presumptive charge cannot be enlarged beyond its own conditions. Read the section text in the judgment as the version in force for AY 1994-95, not as the current law: s.44BBB has been amended since, and the judgment's own extract of the section differs from the CBDT circular it quotes, which adds the condition that the project be financed under an international aid programme. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Tie the s.44BBB charge to the previous year: show the year-by-year record of amounts paid or payable under the contract, and show that nothing was paid or payable in the year the officer has taxed.
The assessee is a non-resident foreign company headquartered at Legnano, Italy, with a project office at Chennai established from 1 October 1981 and registered with the Registrar of Companies with Reserve Bank permission. Under contract dated 8 June 1981 with Neyveli Lignite Corporation it undertook unloading, erection, testing and commissioning of three steam turbine generators with ancillaries. Following Rule 10 of the Income-tax Rules the Assessing Officer had, for AY 1982-83 to AY 1993-94, closed the assessments as NA on the footing that profit or loss would be determined on completion of the entire contract, and the assessee accepted that; but for AY 1988-89 and AY 1989-90 the returned losses had been accepted and computed. The units were provisionally taken over by NLC on 28 September 1986, 8 May 1987 and 23 April 1988, guarantee obligations expired by 23 April 1989 and the bank guarantees were returned by 30 April 1989. The erection invoice was raised on 16 April 1988 and all bills were settled before 30 April 1990. Of the total Rs 4,90,45,132.72 received, Rs 3,02,10,878.21 was received in AY 1988-89 and AY 1989-90 and the balance in AY 1986-87, 1987-88, 1990-91 and 1991-92. For AY 1994-95 the assessee filed a consolidated profit and loss account for 1 January 1981 to 31 March 1994 showing a net loss of Rs 5,80,69,876 and returned nil income. Relying on the assessee's letter of 24 January 1995 stating that the contract had come to an end on 5 November 1993, the Assessing Officer applied s.44BBB to the entire Rs 4,90,45,132 and charged Rs 49,04,510 as deemed profit. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The matter was decided on 2010-01-05 by the High Court (D. Murugesan J and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed and the questions answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Section 44BBB is a deeming provision under which ten per cent of the amount paid or payable to the assessee is deemed to be profits; unless the amount is paid or payable during the year, the Revenue cannot levy ten per cent on the gross amount. On the concurrent findings that nothing was paid or payable during the accounting year and that the entire Rs 4,90,45,132 had been received in years long before AY 1994-95, the Assessing Officer was not justified in aggregating the payments and charging ten per cent in the year of completion. The mere completion of the contract does not suffice. The Assessing Officer was required instead to deal with the return of loss filed for AY 1994-95 by following the normal procedure, the CIT(A) having rightly observed that he was at liberty to scrutinise the loss and determine the amount to be carried forward (paragraph 7).
The Court set out s.44BBB as it stood, noted that it was inserted by the Finance Act 1989 with effect from 1 April 1990 and applies from AY 1990-91, and described it as a special provision for computing presumptive profits of foreign enterprises engaged in civil construction and erection, testing or commissioning in certain turnkey power projects. It set out CBDT Circular No. 550 dated 1 January 1990 explaining the object — simplification, given the difficulty of verifying expenses of non-residents whose books are kept abroad. On the facts, the authorities below had found that the works were completed by 30 April 1989, before s.44BBB came into force, and that payments at intermediate stages had been made against invoices supported by the purchaser's completion certificates. The Court treated as significant that the assessee had been regularly filing returns which had been processed, and that for AY 1988-89 and 1989-90 the assessments had not been closed on a no income no loss basis but on the computed loss. From these facts it was clear that no amount was received in the accounting year. Since the charge under the deeming provision requires an amount paid or payable during the accounting year, and unless the conditions stipulated in the deeming provision are satisfied the Revenue cannot invoke it, the findings of the authorities were based on valid material, were findings of fact and were not perverse. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that unless and until the amount is paid or payable to the assessee during the year, the revenue cannot levy 10% on the gross amount." The decision followed or applied CBDT Circular No. 550 dated 1 January 1990, (1990) 182 ITR ST 124 — relied on for the object and scope of s.44BBB.
It was decided by the High Court on 2010-01-05 and is reported as Tax Case (Appeal) No. 571 of 2004 (High Court of Judicature at Madras), against ITAT Chennai 'A' Bench order dated 23 February 2004 in ITA No. 654/Mds/97. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 44BBB, section 143(3), section 143(1)(a), section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was dismissed and the questions answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Section 44BBB is a deeming provision under which ten per cent of the amount paid or payable to the assessee is deemed to be profits; unless the amount is paid or payable during the year, the Revenue cannot levy ten per cent on the gross amount. On the concurrent findings that nothing was paid or payable during the accounting year and that the entire Rs 4,90,45,132 had been received in years long before AY 1994-95, the Assessing Officer was not justified in aggregating the payments and charging ten per cent in the year of completion. The mere completion of the contract does not suffice. The Assessing Officer was required instead to deal with the return of loss filed for AY 1994-95 by following the normal procedure, the CIT(A) having rightly observed that he was at liberty to scrutinise the loss and determine the amount to be carried forward (paragraph 7). It arises in Presumptive Taxation & Audit and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 44BBB, section 143(3), section 143(1)(a), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by D. Murugesan J and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Rely on the assessment history — the Court gave weight to the fact that the earlier years' returns had been filed and processed, two of them accepting the computed loss rather than being closed as no income no loss. Where a completed-contract method has been followed under Rule 10 and earlier years were closed as NA, put those orders on record; that history is what defeated the aggregation here. If the officer relies on a letter of yours recording the date the contract ended, meet it directly — that was the sole basis for the s.44BBB invocation here and the Court held it insufficient. Do not rely on the section text extracted in this 2010 judgment as the current law; check the current text of s.44BBB, including the approval and financing conditions, before advising.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. I did not check whether this judgment was carried further or has been followed. Independently of later treatment, the section text set out in the judgment is the version relevant to AY 1994-95 and s.44BBB has been amended since; the entry should not be used to state the current conditions of the section. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The whole judgment was transcribed from the plain /doc/ URL. It has seven numbered paragraphs; paragraph 7 is very long and carries the entire reasoning and the disposal, which was re-confirmed through /docfragment/. The judgment reproduces s.44BBB in the form 'in connection with a turnkey power project approved by the Central Government in this behalf' without the condition, appearing in the CBDT circular it quotes at the same place, that the project be financed under an international aid programme. The section has been amended since the assessment year in issue and the text in the judgment must not be read as the current provision. The respondent was unrepresented before the High Court. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed and the questions answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Section 44BBB is a deeming provision under which ten per cent of the amount paid or payable to the assessee is deemed to be profits; unless the amount is paid or payable during the year, the Revenue cannot levy ten per cent on the gross amount. On the concurrent findings that nothing was paid or payable during the accounting year and that the entire Rs 4,90,45,132 had been received in years long before AY 1994-95, the Assessing Officer was not justified in aggregating the payments and charging ten per cent in the year of completion. The mere completion of the contract does not suffice. The Assessing Officer was required instead to deal with the return of loss filed for AY 1994-95 by following the normal procedure, the CIT(A) having rightly observed that he was at liberty to scrutinise the loss and determine the amount to be carried forward (paragraph 7).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
You gave particulars, paid by cheque and got a confirmation. Has the burden shifted?