OIL INDIA LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
1996 P T D 666
[212 I T R 225]
[Orissa High Court (India)]
Before G. B. Patnaik and P. C. Naik, JJ
OIL INDIA LTD.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
S. J. C. Nos. 111 and 113 to 119 of 1991, decided on 14/11/1994.
Income-tax---
----Business---Perquisites---Exploration of mineral oil---Agreement between non-resident company and Indian company for exploration of mineral oil-- Indian company discharging income-tax liability of non-resident company---Tax liability of non-resident company is perquisite arising from business of oil exploration---Computation of perquisite to be made under S. 44BB(1)---Only 10 percent. of same to be deemed to be profits of the business---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 28 & 44BB
A non-resident firm had entered into an agreement with an Indian company in connection with mineral oil exploration. Under the contract, the Indian company had undertaken the liability to pay the income-tax which was otherwise payable by the non-resident firm. The Indian company filed the necessary income-tax return as an agent of the non-resident firm. In the return it was indicated that as the non-resident firm had rendered its services in connection with mineral oil exploration activities, the provisions of section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would apply in respect of the tax paid by the Indian company under the agreement in question. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not accept the contention and treated the amount which had been paid by the Indian company towards income-tax as the business profit of the non-resident firm. The Tribunal held that the liability towards income-tax of the non-resident was not a payment for the services rendered by them for exploring oil, but it was an independent liability and, therefore, the entire amount should be considered as taxable income. On a reference:
Held, on the facts, that the tax liability of the non-resident firm which had been undertaken by the Indian company and had been paid by the Indian company would be a perquisite arising from the business of oil exploration under the agreement entered into by the non-resident firm with the Indian firm and would be taxable as such. The computation of the same would have to be made under subsection (1) of section 44BB and, therefore, only ten percent. of the same would be deemed to be the profits of such business chargeable to tax and not the entire sum.
C.I.T. v. American Consulting Corporation (1980) 123 ITR 513 (Orissa) fol.
Dr. Devi Pal and S. K. Gajendra for the Assessee.
Standing Counsel for the Commissioner.
JUDGMENT
G. B. PATNAIK, J.---The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court which arises out of the second appellate order of the Tribunal:
"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax borne by Oil India Limited in respect of contracts with non-resident is not taxable as income of the non-resident?
(ii) If the answer to question No.(i) is in the negative, whether the entire or ten per cent of tax borne by Oil India Limited should be taken as income of the non-resident considering, the provisions of section 44BB and other sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
The aforesaid two questions arise under the following circumstances. Nowsco Well Services Ltd., a non-resident firm, had entered into an agreement with Oil India Limited, in connection with mineral oil exploration activity in the Mahanadi basin. Under the contract, the Indian firm, namely, Messrs Oil India Limited, had undertaken the liability to pay the income-tax which is otherwise payable by the non-resident firm. Messrs Oil India Limited filed the necessary income-tax return as an agent of the non-resident firm. In the return it was indicated that as the non-resident firm had rendered its services in connection with mineral oil exploration activities, the provisions of section 44BB of the Income-tax Act would apply in respect of the tax paid by Oil India Limited. under the agreement in question. The Income Tax Officer, however, did not accept the contention and treated the amount which had been paid by Oil India towards income-tax as the business profit of the non-resident firth and included the same in the total income and determined the tax liability. The assessee being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the tax paid by the Indian firm towards the liability- of the non-resident firm formed part of the consideration for services rendered by the said non-resident firm and, therefore, under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, ten percent. of the said amount would be taken as income. The appellate authority further held that the amount paid by the Indian firm towards tax cannot be assessed as perquisite under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The appellate authority accordingly directed the Income-tax Officer to re-compute the tax liability. Against the appellate order, the Department filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed cross-objection. While the stand of the Department before the Tribunal was that the amount paid by the Indian firm towards the tax liability of the non-resident firm must be held to be a receipt in the hands of the non resident and as such taxable, the stand of the assessee was that the entire amount is non-taxable by virtue of the application of section 44BB of the Act. The Tribunal, however, rejected the contention of the assessee and dismissed the cross-objection, but allowed the appeal of the Department on a finding that the liability of income-tax of the non-resident is not payment for the services tendered by them for exploring oil, but it is an independent liability and, therefore, the entire amount should be considered as taxable income. The assessee thereafter moved the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act and the Tribunal having referred the questions as already stated, the matter has come before us.
Dr. Pal, appearing for the assessee, contends that on a plain reading of the agreement between the parties, the conclusion is irresistible that the tax paid by Oil India which would have been otherwise paid by the non-resident firm is nothing but, a benefit or perquisite and as such would be taxable as profits of business. But special provision for computing such profits in connection with the business of exploration of mineral oil having been made by Parliament by insertion of section 44BB by the Finance Act of 1987 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1983, the entire amount of tax paid will not be taxable and the Tribunal committed gross error of law in holding that this is an independent receipt in the hands of the non-resident and, therefore, the same is taxable. Dr. Pal alternatively contends that even if the amount would be held to be taxable, by the application of section 44BB, only ten percent. of the same can be held to be chargeable to tax by virtue of the deeming provision under subsection (1) of section 44BB.
Mr. Ray, learned standing counsel for the Department, on the other hand, contends that the payment made by the Indian firm towards the tax liability of the non-resident firm must be held to be an independent income or income from other sources and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly held the entire amount to be taxable.
The correctness of the rival submissions would depend upon an examination of some provisions of the Income-tax Act as well as the terms and conditions of the agreement under which the Indian firm undertook the liability of making all payments towards income-tax for which the non-resident firm would have otherwise been liable and as to what would be the character of such payment. Learned standing counsel, with reference to the definition of "income" in section 2(24) and the charging section under section 5 ~as well as the different heads of income defined in section 14, contends that the income-tax paid by the Indian firm which would have otherwise been paid by the non-resident firm must be held to be an income from other sources of the non-resident firm and, therefore, is liable to be taxed. There is no dispute that the non-resident firm had entered into an agreement with the Indian firm and carried on the business of exploration of oil in the Mahanadi basin. Under the terms of the agreement, apart from payments to be made to the non-resident firm by the Indian firm, it was also stipulated that the entire tax liability would be borne by the Indian firm. It is this payment made by the Indian firm towards tax liability of the non resident firm which is the subject-matter of dispute. On examining the definition of "income" in section 2(24) as well as the heads of income as indicated in section 14, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the Revenue that it would be an independent income of the non-resident firm. On the other hand, it would be profits or gains of business under the head "D" in section 14 of the Income-tax Act. Section 28 defines as to what income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Section 28(iv) which came into the statute book by the Finance Act of 1964 with effect from April 1,1964. provides:
"(iv) the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession. "
The non-resident firm having entered into an agreement with the Indian firm and having taken up the business of exploration of mineral oil in the Mahanadi basin and having agreed to be paid a particular sum as indicated in the agreement, and the Indian firm having taken up the liability of paying the entire income-tax dues payable by the non-resident firm, the same will partake of the character of a perquisite arising from the business of exploration of mineral oil. This question has already been decided by a Bench of this Court under similar circumstances in the case of CIT v. American Consulting Corporation (1980) 123 ITR 513 and the agreement in that case is identical with the agreement in the case in hand. This Court ultimately came to hold that it was a perquisite which arises to the non-resident firm and as such is taxable as profits of its business. But by the date of the aforesaid judgment, the special provision of computation as contained in section 44BB had not been engrafted and, on the other hand, section 28(iv) had been engrafted and the Court answered the question accordingly. But with regard to the characteristic of the payment, the ratio of the aforesaid case would apply with full force to the present case and, consequently, it must be held that the tax liability met by Oil India Limited is a perquisite which the non-resident firm had been granted under the agreement and, therefore, it is taxable as profits of business.
The further question that would arise is whether section 44BB of the Act would apply or not. Section 44BB is a special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration of mineral oil. Parliament engrafted the aforesaid provision in the Income-tax Act as a measure of simplification providing for determination of income of such taxpayers at ten per cent of the aggregate of certain amount. By virtue of section 44BB and because of the non obstante clause, section 28 of the Act will have no application. In other words, the value of the prerequisite arising from the business will have to be computed as provided in section 44BB(1) when the business is exploration of mineral oil. Dr. Pal, appearing for the assessee, however, contends that in view of subsection (2) of section 44BB, the amount referred to in subsection (1) has to be such amount as contained in clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) and obviously, therefore, a perquisite arising from the business not being included therein, the entire amount will be non-taxable. It is difficult to accept this contention since once it is held that the payment thus made towards the income-tax liability of the non-resident firm by the Indian firm is a perquisite arising from the business of oil exploration, it must be held to be an income of the non-resident firm, but would be taxable only in accordance with section 44BB(1) and consequently only ten per cent of the said income would be deemed to be the gains of such business chargeable to tax and not the entire amount, as has been held by the Tribunal. In the aforesaid premises, our answers to the questions posed are:
(i) One the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tax liability of the non-resident firm which has been undertaken by the Indian firm and has been paid by the Indian firm would be a perquisite arising from the business of oil exploration under the agreement entered into by the non resident firm with the Indian firm and would be taxable as such.
(ii) The computation of the same will have to be made under subsection (1) of section 44BB and, therefore, only ten per cent of the same would be deemed to be the profits of such business chargeable to tax and not the entire sum.
These batch of references are answered accordingly.
P. C. NAIK J. ---I agree.
M.B.A./1077/FReference answered.