Section 44BB

Section 44BB — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 44BB, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Sedco Forex International Inc v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  We are a non-resident drilling contractor taxed under section 44BB. Is the mobilisation fee for bringing the rig to India part of the taxable receipts?
  Yes, on these contracts. The Supreme Court held that a fixed mobilisation fee paid for moving a drilling unit to the Indian location falls within clause (a) of section 44BB(2), as an amount paid on account of the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire used in, the extraction of mineral oils in India. Clause (a) applies whether the amount is paid in or outside India. By the fiction in section 44BB the amount becomes income under section 5 and is treated as arising in India for section 9. The assessees' appeals were dismissed.
• CIT v Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  I am a foreign company on a turnkey contract. I fabricated the platform abroad and only installed it in India. Can the Department tax the offshore fabrication profit because the contract was one indivisible whole?
  No, on these facts. The Supreme Court held that an installation permanent establishment comes into existence only at the installation stage, which is after the equipment has been sold and delivered abroad, so profits on the offshore supply are not attributable to it. Under Article 7 what is taxed is not the real profit but the hypothetical profit the permanent establishment would have made as a wholly independent enterprise, so nothing can be attributed on the supply unless the Department shows the price was not at arm's length or included an element for the establishment's services. On quantum, ten per cent of the Indian gross receipts was upheld.
• National Petroleum Construction Company v DIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I am a UAE company that fabricates offshore platforms abroad and installs them in India. My installation ran under nine months with a long break in the middle. Do I have a permanent establishment here?
  No. The Delhi High Court held the UAE company had no permanent establishment in India for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Under Article 5(2)(h) of the India-UAE treaty the nine-month test looks to the period the enterprise is actually involved at the site; a long interruption when the assessee had no access to the site is excluded, and the installation activity lasted only from November 2006 to April 2007. The Indian consultant was an agent of independent status acting in its ordinary course of business, with no authority to conclude contracts, so it was no dependent agent permanent establishment. The assessment orders and the Tribunal's orders were set aside.
• DIT v OHM Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I am a foreign company providing survey and data services to an offshore oil exploration block in India. Am I taxed at 10% of gross under section 44BB, or must I go under section 44DA?
  Section 44BB applies. The Delhi High Court upheld the Authority for Advance Rulings and held that where a non-resident provides services in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils, section 44BB governs the computation, not section 44DA. Section 44BB is the special provision and section 44DA the general one, so generalia specialibus non derogant applies. Reading section 44DA as covering everything would reduce section 44BB to a dead letter. The provisos inserted by the Finance Act 2010 in both sections are clarificatory on computation and do not change either section's sphere of operation.
• John A. Sayre v CIT Advance RulingHelps departmentSuperseded by amendment
  I am a geologist running production at three oil and gas fields in India for a foreign oil company. Am I a technician in mining, or in constructional operations, for the section 10(5B) exemption?
  No, on both routes. The Authority held that mining in the Explanation to s.10(5B) is not used in a broad sense that takes in prospecting for or extraction of mineral oil, because the Income-tax Act consistently treats mineral oil as something separate from minerals and makes its own special provision for it in ss.42, 44BB and 293A. It also rejected the alternative case that the applicant was a technician in constructional or manufacturing operations: he had a degree in geology and no shown special knowledge of construction, and he was employed to run oil and gas field production, not to build. It did accept the applicant's answer to the Commissioner's threshold objection - the second category of technician, one employed in any business carried on in India, need not be in government or public employment. The ruling binds only the applicant.
• Tekniskil (Sendirian) Berhard v CIT Advance RulingHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  We are a Malaysian company that recruits skilled workers abroad and supplies them to a Korean contractor working offshore India. We are paid outside India and we supervise nothing. Are we taxable here?
  No. The Authority ruled that Tekniskil, a Malaysian manpower company, was not taxable in India on sums received abroad and had no permanent establishment here. It supplied about a hundred skilled workers to Hyundai Heavy Industries for offshore installation work at Bombay High. It recruited them outside India, bore their mobilisation and personal costs, and handed them over; HHI directed and supervised them on its own barges. Supplying labour was a business activity, so article 7 of the India-Malaysia agreement applied, and with no fixed place at Tekniskil's disposal there was nothing for the profits to attach to. The ruling binds only Tekniskil.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.