SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THROUGH IT'S CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. NAVIN SARDA v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. MEERUT & ANR.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. K SIKRI, J. I. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 2955 of 2012, SLP(C) No. ll560 of2014, SLP(C) No. 20000 of2015, SLP(C) No. 22343 of2012, SLP(C) No. 22833 of 2012, SLP(C) No. 39683 of2013 c and SLP(C) No. 21939 of2017.

2Copy pinpoint2. In all these appeals filed by different appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessees') except Civil Appeal No. 3695 of2012 which is filed by Director oflncome Tax (Revenue). the question oflaw which arises for consideration is identical and pertains to the scope and interpretation of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the •Act').

3Copy pinpoint3. For computation of profits and gains of a business, to make it exigiblc to tax under the Act, provisions contained in Chapter IV, from Sections 28 to 41, 43 and 43A of the Act-apply. However, in those cases where the assessec is a non-resident and specifically engaged in the business of exploration etc. of mineral oil, special mechanism is provided in Section 44BB of the Act for computation of profits and gains, on which the tax is charged. It, however, gives choice to such non-resident asscssccs to opt for computation formula provided under Section 44BB or to be covered by normal computation mechanism contained in Sections F 28 to 41, 43 and 43A of the Act. Section 44BB of the Act stipulates that a sum equal to 10% 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'. Thus, concessional rate of I 0% is charged as tax, which is G admittedly much less than the normal tax rate payable on profits and gains of business or profession. However, this tax @l 0% is on the aggregate of the amounts specified in sub-section (2) which are "deemed" · profits and gains of such business. Thus, insofar as calculation of profits and gains of the business under Section 44BB of the Act is concerned, H

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] l l S.C.R.

A on which l 0% tax 1s payable, it is worked out on fictional basis by adopting the formula laid down in sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) mentions those amounts aggregate whereof is to be treated as deemed profits and gains of such a busmess.

4Copy pinpoint4. At this juncture. we reproduce the provisions of Section 44BB B of the Act, as reading of this provision is necessary before spelling out the nature of dispute which had arisen in these appeals. This section reads as under: "44BB. Special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc., of c mineral ails. ( 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 D 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" :

E 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 l l 5Aor 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:- F (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out oflndia) 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 extrnction or production of, mineral oils in India; and G (b) the amount received or deemed to be received in India by or on behalf of the assessec 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. H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 409 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), an A assessee may claim lower profits and gains than the profits and gains specified in that sub-section, ifhe 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, B 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 asscssee. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- c ( i) "planf' includes ships, aircrnft, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparntus and equipment, used for the purposes of the said business; (ii) "mineral_ oil" includes petroleum and natural gas."

5Copy pinpoint5. A bare reading ofthe aforesaid provision brings out the following salient features thereof: D (a) Sub-section (I) is a non-obstante clause, starting with the expression 'notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained ;n Sections 28 to 41 and Sections 43 and 43A'. Thus, once we apply this special provision for computation ofprofits and gains, provisions for computation of such profits as contained in E Sections 28 to 41 and Sections 43 and 43A of the Act stand excluded. (b) In order to attract the provisions ofScction 44BB of the Act, two conditions are to be specified, namely, (i) assessee has to be a non-resident; and (ii) assessee should be engaged in the business of exploration etc. in mineral oils of the nature specifically spelled out in the provision. (c) Choice is given to such an asscssce under sub-section (3) of the Act to either claim lower profits and gains than the profits and gains specified in sub-section (2) and covered by normal provisions of computing profits and gains of business or profession, subject to fulfilling the conditions of audit etc. ~s mentioned therein or to be governed by Section 44BB of the Act.

4IO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I J S.C.R.

A ( d) In case the twin conditions mentioned above. are satisfied ' the assessee can take the benefit ,,f paying the tax as per the provisions of Section 4488 on "deemed profits and gains" of its business and such profits and gains are to be calculated as per the formula provided in sub-section (2) thereof. Pertinently, it is a 'deemed' provision for calculating profits and gains of 8 business or profession, which means that such profits and gains arc to be arrived at fictionally, as per provisions contained in sub-section (2). (c) Sub-section (2) mentions the amounts which are to be added up, and·thc aggregate of those amounts is deemed to be profits c and gains on which 10% tax is charged as component of income tax.

6Copy pinpoint6. Coming to the /is that is involved in these appeals, it may be seen that sub-section (2) mentions two kinds of amounts which are to be treated as profits and gains of the business. In clause (a) of sub-section D (2), the amount referred to arc those which arc paid or payable to 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 extrnction or production of, mineral oils in India. It is immaterial whether the said amount is paid or payable in E India or out oflndia. Second kind of amounts mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) arc those sums which arc received or deemed to be received by or on behalf of the assessee on account of provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply ofplant and machinery on hire used or to be used in the prospecting for, extraction or production ofmincrnl oils outside India. Herc, however, only those sums which arc paid or payable in India are to be included.

7Copy pinpoint7. The asscssccs herein had entered into contracts primarily with Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), a public sector company, for hire of their rig for carrying out oil exploration activities in India. For this purpose, they were paid mobilisation fee as well, for and on account of mobilisation/movement ofrig from foreign soil/counlly to the off-shore side at Mumbai (India). The issue that has fallen for consideration is as to whether aforesaid amount received is to be included for computation of deemed profits and gains of the business, chargeable to tax under Section 4488 of the Act. Right from the Assessing Officer (AO) till the H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 411 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

High Court, all the fora have answered this question in affi1mative holding that this amount is to be included for computing profits and gains of the businesses of the assessees.

8Copy pinpoint8. Civil Appeal Nos. 4906 of2010, 4907 of2010, 4915 of2010 filed by Sedco Forcx International Inc., Mis Transocean Offshore Inc., Mis Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. respectively were taken up as lead matters and, therefore, for the sake of brevity, we recapitulate the factual matrix from the said appeals, as it would suffice for answering the question involved.

9Copy pinpoint9. During the years umlerconsideration, the asscssees are engaged in executing the contracts all over the world including India in connection c with exploration_ and production of mineral oil. The assessees are companies incorporated outside India and, therefore, non-resident within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act. The assessecs entered into agreements with ONGC, Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. The aforesaid agreements provided for the scope of work along with separate considerMion for the work undertaken. Since the dispute is about D mobilisation charges, clauses in respect thereof are as.under: "Operating Rate - Receipts for undertaking drilling operations computed by per day rates provided in the contract. The operating rates shall be payable from the time the drilling unit is jacked-up and ready at the location to spud the first well. E

Mobilisation-charges for the transport of the drilling unit from a location outside India to a location in India as may be designated by ONGC." In addition to the above, assessees also received amounts from F the operator towards reimbursement of expenses like catering, boarding/ lodging, fuel, customs duty, the supply of material etc., with which we are not concerned. l 0. The assessces filed their return of income declaring income from charter higher of the rig. The same was offered to tax under G Section 44BB of the Act. In the case of Scdco Forex International Inc., the lk~sessee did not include the amount received as mobilisation charges to the gross revenue for the purpose of computation under Section 44BB of the Act. Jn the case of Transocean Offshore Inc., the assessec included l % of the mobilisation fees. The mobilisation fees were offered H

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) l l S.C.R.

A to tax on a l % deemed profit basis on the ratio of the CBDT Instruction No. 1767 dated July I, 1987.

11Copy pinpoint11. The AO included the amounts received for mobilisation! demobilisation to the gross revenue to arrive at the "profits and gains" for the purpose of computing TAX under Section 44BB of the Act. The B Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'J confirmed the action of the AO. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the '!TAT') in the case of Sedco F orex International Inc. dismissed the appeal of the assessee and the action of the AO was upheld insofar as the mobilisation charges were concerned. In the case of Transocean Offshore Inc., the !TAT upheld c the view taken by the assessee and directed the AO to assess the profits on mobilisation charges at l % of the amount received. This was done following the Circular ofCBDT Instruction No. 1767 dated July 1, 1987 and decision of the third Member in the case of Saipem S.P.A. v. Depu(v Commissioner of Im·ome Tax'. The High Com1 has held that the D mobilisation charges reimbursed inter alia even for the services rendered outside India were taxable under Section 4488 of the Act as the same is not governed by the charging provisions of Sections 5 and 9 of the Act. Even on the issue of reimbursement in M/s. Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. (Civil Appeal No. 4915 of 2010), the High Court followed its earlier judgments dated September 20, 2007 and May E 22, 2009 to hold that reimbursement of expenses incurred by the asscssee was to be included in the gross receipts, and taxable under Section 44BB of the Act.

12Copy pinpoint12. From the aforesaid briefnarration of fact~. it may be discerned that following three types of payments were given by the ONGC to the F asscssees: (i) Mobilisation/demobilisation advance. (ii) Custom duty reimbursement. (iii) Operational charges reimbursement. G

13Copy pinpoint13. The High Court has held that these payments be also included as amounts received for computation of aggregate of amounts specified in sub-section (2) as deemed to be the profits and gains of the businesses of the assessees, chargeable to tax under the said provision. '88 rm 213 (Dell H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 413 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

J4. Mr. Porns F. Kaka, learned senior advocate appearing in some of these appeals submitted that the aforesaid amounts were, in fact, towards reimbursement of expenses actually incurred by the assessees. According to him, the work undertaken was, in fact, the obligation of the ONGC and it was for ONGC to provide such facilities/material under the contract. Stili the assessees performed the said task at the request of the ONGC and ONGC simply reimbursed these expenses which did not have any profit element. It was emphasised by Mr. Kaka that insofar as the asscsse~~Scdco Forcx International Inc. is concerned, the expenditure incurred on mobilisation was much higher than the actual payment received. Thus, this assessee had, in fact, suffered loss on this transaction. He also pointed out that the agreement separately provided c for consideration/remuneration for mobilisation and demobilisation of dri Hing unit and reimbursement of cost incurred on behalf of the operator of ONGC. It was submitted that as this was the nature of the amount received, namely, reimbursement of expenses without there being any profit clement, it could not be treated as 'amount' within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act.

15Copy pinpoint15. Explaining the taxation of income scheme enumerated under Sections 4. 5 and 9 of the Act, Mr. Kaka submitted that globally the tax systems can be classified broadly into two models; Worldwide and I Territorial syst~m. India follows a territorial system of taxation specially qua business income of non-residents, which is taxed only as it is attributable to operations within the Indian territory. This, according to him, was clear from the conjoint reading of Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act. Section 4 is the charging section for levying a tax <in income of any person under the Act which provides that income tax shall be levied at the rates provided by the Finance Act on the 'total income' of the previous year. Scope of total income is provided under Section 5 of the Act which deals with total income ofresidents as well as non-residents. The learned senior counsel pointed out that insofar as non-residents arc concerned. total income as per Section 5(2) of the Act is the income which is recci vcd or deemed to be rccei ved in India in such year or on behalf of such person; or income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India during such year. He, thus, argued that in respect of non-residents only that income which is received or deemed to be rccci vcd in India or which accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India is taxable. In order to locate the income which is deemed H

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l I S.C.R.

A to accrue or arise in India, Section 9 is the concerned provision. Section 9 acknowledges principle of attribution of income under the Act. Section 9 lays down two broad categories of taxable of income i.e. (a) business income; and (b) income from interest or royalty or fees for technical scrvic1.::s. Insofar as business income is concerned, it becomes taxable and only that income becomes chargeable to tax in India which is B attributable lo operations carried out in India. Insofar as second category, namely, income in the nature of interest, royalty or fees for technical services is concancd. such income would be deemed to accrue or arise in India, irrespective of situs of the services. The learned senior counsel argued that insofar as payment for mobilisation which was received by c the assessce is concerned. it is neither income receipt nor deemed to be received in India. It is in respect of services outside India and, therefore, docs not accrue or arise or deemed to accrue or arise under Section 5 read with Section 9 of the Act.

16Copy pinpoint16. Proceeding fu11her on the aforesaid line of argument, he D submitted that, in the first instance, it has to be determined that income accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in lndia. Only when that is established, the next step is to compute the total income based on other provisions of the Act and here Chapter IV of the Act which deals with computation of income from 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' gets triggered. It was submitted that, no doubt, Sections E 44B, 44BB, 44BBB etc. provide for special mechanism for computing the income in the case ofnon-rcsidents on presumptive basis. However, cwn when the income is to be computed under any of these provisions, first pre-requisite is to find out as to whether a particular income has accrued or arisen or deemed to accrue or arise in India. If that threshold is not met, the question of treating such payments as 'income', merely because the income is to be computed under special provision, is of no conscc1ucnce. Mr. Kaka also referred to Circular No. 495 dated September 22, 1987 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) which. aecordingto him, explains the Legislature intent behind inserting Section 44BB in the Act. According to the circular, the computation of taxable income of a non-resident asscsscc engaged in the business of exploration etc. of mineral oils in accordance with the general mode of computation under Sections 28 to 43A involved a number of complications. As a measure of simplification, Scction 44BB was inserted by the Finance Act, I 987 with retrospective effect from April l, 1983 H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 415 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

for determination of income of such tax payers on a presumptive basis, at 10'% of the amounts mentioned in sub-section (2) thereof. Relevant portion of that circular is as under: "2.1.1 A numbcrofcomplications are involved in the computation of taxable income of a taxpayer engaged in the business of providing services and facilities in connection with or supply of plant and machinery on hire, used or to be used in the exploration for and exploitation of mineral oils. With a view to simplifying the provisions, the Amending Act has inserted a new Section 44BB which provides for determining of the income of such taxpayers at JO percent of the aggregate of certain amounts which have b~en specified. This amount will include the amounts received or c due to be received in India on account of such services or facilities or supply of plant and machinery."

17Copy pinpoint17. After arguing that the provisions have to be read in the aforesaid manner, proposition advanced by the learned senior counsel is that Section 44BB of the Act is only a computation provision and does not override D Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. For this purpose, he referred to the judgment of this Court in U11io11 of India & Anr. v. A. Sa11yasi Rt10 & Ors.' wherein Section 44AC of the Act has been interpreted in a similar mimner holding that Section 44AC read with Section 206C is the only machinery provision and not charging Section. E

18Copy pinpoint18. Towing the aforesaid line of argument, another submission of Mr. Kaka was that since Section 44BB is a computation provision under the head ·income', it cannot override the charging section. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of l11co111e Tt1x v. F.Y. Kllambaty 3• Mr. Kaka also F rclicfupon the followingjudgmcnts: (a) A11glo-Fl'e11ch Textile Co111pt111y, Ltd.. by Age11ts Mis Best & Co111p1111y, Ltd., Madras v. Co111111issio11er ofI11co111e Tt1x, Mt1drt1.~ 4

(b) /s/1ikaw"j111t1-H11ri111t1 Heavy /11dustries Ltd. v. Director G of l11co111e Tax, Mumbai' '\I9%J 3 sec 465 3 (1986) 1591TR203

'(1954) 25 ITR 27 (SC) '(2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC)~ (2007) 3 sec 481) H

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) I l S.C.R.

A (c) Ct1rborand11111 & Co. v. CIT, Mmlra.\~

( d) Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Best and Compt111y (Prfrate) Ltd., Madras' l 9. He also cited judgments on the proposition that CBDT Circulars arc binding on tax authorities; reimbursement of actual expenses docs B not represent income and, therefore, cannot be taxed; and normal concept of income cannot be taken away by presumption provisions.

20Copy pinpoint20. In nutshell, as can be seen from the aforesaid arguments, the proposition advanced by learned senior counsel arc as follows: (a) Principle ofapportionment between India and outside India is c a basic principle of income tax law. Where payments are made to a non-resident outside India, for services rendered out~ide India, namely mobilization charges forclrilling rigs from a foreign location to a location in India, the same is not chargeable to tax in India under Sections 5 and 9 of the Act and the same cannot be made chargeable to tax under Section D 4488 of the Act. (b) A computation provision like Section 44BB cannot override the charging provisions of Sections 4 and 5. It is so stated in the instruction No. 1767 dated July l. 1987 issued by the CBDT. The understanding of the CBDT is binding on the E Revenue. (c) The charges were reimbursed for services rendered outside India. Services rendered outside India cannot be chargeable to tax under the Act. There should be sufficient territorial nexus between the rendering of services and the territorial limits of the Act to make the income taxable. ( d) Where the actual expenditure i neurred by the assessee for the mobilization of the rigs was higher than the amount reimbursed, there cannot be any income chargeable to tax under the Act. ( c) Reimbursement ofactual expenditure, which was the obligation of the operator/company cannot he included in receipts under Section 44BB of the Act as the income tax is levied on income. Further, the fact of such reimbursements being devoid ofany profit element has not been disputed by the Revenue. ' ( 1977) I 08 !TR 335 (SC) '(1966) 60 !TR 11 (SC) H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 417 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

21Copy pinpoint21. Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant A Pride Foramer S.A. (Civil Appeal No. 4543 of 2013) stated that the appellant in the said case is a non-resident company incorporated in the Republic ofFrancc. It also entered into contract with ONGC for hire of its rig for carrying out oil exploration activities by ONGC 'n India. The rig was located in Singapore and accordingly, under the contract, mobilization fees ofUS$1 million (equivalent to Rs.4,31,10,000/-) was payable by ONGC to the appellant for and on account of mobilization/ movement of rig from Singapore to the offshore site at Mumbai. In case of delay, liquidated damages @0.5% of operating day rate subject to a maximum of 5% of the annual operating charges was payable by the appellant to ONGC. In Assessment Year 2000-0 l, during the year under consideration, the appellant received outside India, net mobilization charges of US$ 6,42,300 (equivalent to Rs.2, 76,89,533/-) after deduction of liquidated damages for delay, for mobilization from Singapore to the offshore site (in India).

22Copy pinpoint22. On the aforesaid facts, he submitted that net mobilization charges received outside India could not be taxed in India, more so, when these were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses on account of mobilization/movement of rig from Singapore to the offshore site at Mumbai. His primary contention was that before this payment could be included while making computation under Section 44BB of the Act. it had to be 'income' which is taxable in India in the first instance. His E submissions on the scheme of Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act were the same as that of Mr. Kaka, already noted above. Additionally, he submiUcd that insofar as Section 44BB of the Act is concerned, it only provides a simplified computation mechanism for computing profits and gains in case of non-resident assessee engaged in activities relating to business F of exploration of mineral oil etc. Thereby, overriding the normal computation mechanism contained in Sections 28 to 41, 43 and 43A of the Act. His emphasis was that this provision docs not override charging provisions as contained in Section 4 read with Sections 5 and 9 of the Act, thereby bringing to tax an amount which is not at all taxable under the provisions of the Act. In addition to Circular No. 495 dated September G

22. 1987 (already noted above), he also relied upon Instruction No. 1767 dated July I, 1987 issued by CBDTexplainingthe computation ofbusiness income in case of a contractor engaged in business of exploration of oil where pmt of the activities are carried out in India and part of the activities arc carried on outside India. It has been stated as under: H

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.

A "3. On these facts, it is clear that income accruing or arising to the non-resident contractor should be apportioned between the various activities carried on by it, some of which would be within India and some outside. Where the ownership in the platform, tcnninal, treatment plant or other facilities passed outside India, the non-resident will be taxable only in respect of the activities 'B performed in India by way of installation. hook-up and commissioning etc., of the facilities acquired by the Indian enterprises engaged in oil exploration or production ... "

23Copy pinpoint23. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Vohra relied upon the followingjudgmcnts: c (i) Co111111issio11er of Income Ttu and Anr. v. Hyundai Heavy /11dustries Co. Ltd. 8 (ii) State Bank of Trava11core v. Co111111issioner oflllcome Tax, Kera/a'

24Copy pinpoint24. To summarise. proposition advanced by Mr. Vohra are as under: D (i) Mobilization fee was in respect of activities carried outside India prior to coming into existence of the PE in India and, therefore, this mobilization fee was not taxable at all, in view ofArticle 7 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and France, the relevant portion whereof is as under: "l. The profits of an enterprise of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that Contracting State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other Contracting State but only so much of them as is attributable to that permanent establishment.. .." (ii) In case the payment is held liable to tax in India, then the same has to be computed in terms of Sections 4, 5 and 9 read with Section 44BB of the Act. In that situation, only the mobilization fee pertaining to voyage within the territorial waters oflndia can be subjected to tax. '(2007 i 1 sec 422 9 H (1986) I581TR 102(SC)

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 419 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

(iii)Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is alternatively submitted that since the appellant only received mobilization fee amounting to Rs.2,76,89,533/-(equivalentto US$ 6,42,300), after deduction of liquidated damages, the AO erred in bringing to tax the gross amount ofUS$1 million under Scction44BB oftbeAct.

25Copy pinpoint25. Mr. Lakshmikumaran and Mr. Jay Savla, learned advocates appearing for some other assessees treaded the same path by adopting same line of arguments.

26Copy pinpoint26. Mis. Chidananda and Arijit Prasad, learned advocates appearing for the Revenue put up an emphatic defence to the j udgrnent of the High Court which has accepted the position taken by the Revenue. It was argued that assessce Scdco, which is a non-resident company, had entered c into a composite/indivisible contract with ONGC to provide a drilling unit to carry out drilling operations. A finding of fact to this effect i.e. a composite/indivisible contract was entered into, was arrived at by the !TAT and. therefore, matter had to be proceeded on that basis. Submission was that, as per this contract, it was the obligation of the assessee to mobilise its resources for the purpose of drilling operations. According to them, since the payments were made by ONGC to the assessce in terms of indivisible contract for the purposes of drilling operations, it was not open to the assessee to claim that mobilisation fee/ charges and it should not be included in the aggregate receipts for the purposes of Section 44BB of the Act and their plea that they are not actual charges but expenses in the nature of reimbursement by ONGC was not permissible. It was submitted that though, mobilisation fee/ charges have been separately indicated in the said contract, the payments have been made by ONGC for supply of drilling unit including the rigs, for operating these rigs and for providing experts and other personnel for operating the rigs etc. Therefore, it is a misnomer to term payment of mobilisation fee/charge as 'reimbursement'. They are payments made pursuant to an indivisible contract. Assuming, for the purposes of argument that it amounts to reimbursement, the same will not make any difference for the reason that parties may agree to divide the total amount as a G direct payment by way of fees and some part of the consideration by way of expenses, but this arrangement between the parties would not alter the character of receipts. A receipt will remain as such and will not partake the character of an expenditure. According to the learned counsel, the mobilisation fee/charges paid by ONGC to assessee amounts to income chargeable to tax. H

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.

27Copy pinpoint27. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the definition of "income" as contained in Section 2(24) of the Act which defines the said expression in an inclusive manner. Attention was also drawn to Section 2(45) of the Act which defines "total income" to mean total income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. It was, thus. argued that income had to be computed as per the B provisions of the Act. Even Section 4 of the Act, which is a charging section. clearly points out that income tax is to be paid 'in respect of the total income of the previous year'. Likewise, Section 5 of the Act which deals with 'scope of total income' includes all income from whatever the source derived. It was submitted that, in this hue, Section 9 which c deals with income deemed to accrue or arise in India, had to be looked into. According to the learned counsel, the assessec had business connection in India through the equipment owned by it, operating in India and its employees, experts etc. working in India. Its assets are employed/ used in India and the source of income is in India. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 9( 1)(i) arc fulfilled. Thus, asscssce has territorial nexus in India. Further, in a given case, if the assessee fulfils these requirements and a DTAA applies, this will also constitute a Permanent Establ ishmcnt (PE) through which an assessce operates its business in India. Further, the rigs/equipment are mobilised for its business operations in India and that source of income is in India, therefore, the question of apportionment. Thus. the mobilisation fee/charges paid by ONGC to asscssce is an income chargeable to tax from a conjoint reading of Sections 4. 5 and 9. Therefore, the submission of the asscssee that Section 44BB seeks to tax an event which the charging sections does not seek to tax is incorrect.

28Copy pinpoint28. Adverting to the provisions of Section 44BB of the Act which finds place in Chapter IV dealing with 'computation of income' in respect of business or profession, it was submitted that the scope and effect of Section 44BB has been explained in Departmental Circular No. 495 dated September 22, 1987. It has been mentioned in the said circular that a number of complications were involved in the computation of G wxable income ofa taxpayer engaged in the business of providing services and facilities in connection with or supply of plant and machinery on hire. used or to be used in the exploration for and exploitation of mineral oils. Section 44BB was introduced with a view to simplifying the relevant provisions which provide for determining the income of such taxpayers H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 421 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

at I 0 per cent of the aggregate of certain amounts, which have been specified in the said section. It was submitted that Section 44BB provides for "presumptive income determination". It is a complete code in itself for determining the taxable income 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. It replaces Sections 28 to 41 and Sections 43 and 43A (which otherwise mandates assessee to maintain accounts, claim and prove expenses). Only the receipts are taken into account. Even ifthe actual profits and gains of the asscssee arc more than 10%, only I 0% is presumed to be its income. Thus, 10% is the income and the rest 90% c is allowed as expenditure/allowable claims of the assessee. Assuming that Section 44BB was not on the statute book, assessee would have shown mobilisation fee as receipt and claimed the actual expenditure and arrived at the net taxable income. Now, Section 44BB presumes that only 10% of the aggregate receipts is income and the remaining D 90% is expenditure. It was also argued that in the case of presumptive income determination like Section 44BB. items of expenditure cannot be claimed separately, otherwise it would lead to double deduction as Section 44BB presumes that only 10% of the aggregate receipts is income and the remaining 90% is expenditure. It was pleaded that when all the authorities including the final fact finding authority as well as the High E Court have recorded their concurrent findings on consideration ofrelevant material, this Court may not disturb those findings. Reliance was placed on Amsm·lt/a Technologies Limited v. Joi11t Commis.•io11er ofJ11co111e Tltx, Sped11/ Ra11ge 1, Ha11gafore 10 and Commissioner of lncome 7lrx Hilr11r mid Orissa, Pat11a v. Aslroka Marketi11g Co. 11 F

29Copy pinpoint29. Before we appreciate the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties on both sides, it would be apposite to go into the raiso11 d'etre behind the orders of the ITAT as well as the High Court.

30Copy pinpoint30. The !TAT in its order has taken note of the relevant clauses of the agreements entered into between ONGC and assessec (Scdco) G pertaining to mobilisation and mobilisation fee. Clause 3.2 of the Agreement dated September 3, 1985 relating to providing the Shallow Dash Water Jack Up Rig covering this aspect reads as under: "(20t5) 14 sec 732 "(1972) 4 sec 426 H

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.

A "'Mobilisation Operator shall pay to Contractor a mobilisation fee of eight hundred thousand United States Dollars (US $ 800,000) ("Mobilisation Fee") for the mobilisation of the Drilling Unit from its present location in Setubal, Portugal to the first well location designated B by Operator, Offshore Bombay. India. Operator will notify Contractor no later than fifteen ( 15) days from the execution of this Agreement if it desires to mobilize the Drilling Unit to another location offshore India and no additional costs shall be charged to Operator for mobilisation to such other location. In the event that Operator desires to mobilize the Drilling Unit to another location c offshore India and it fails to notify Contractor by such date, any additional costs incurred by Contractor for such mobilisation in excess of the Mobilisation Fee shall be borne by the Operator. Contractor shall invoice Operator for payment of the Mobilization Fee after the Drilling Unit is jacked-up on the first well location and ready to spud the well. Operator shall make payment to Contractpr no later than thirty (30) days atier receipt of the invoice.'~

31Copy pinpoint31. Clause 4.2 of the Agreement dated July 12, 1986 relating to Mobilisation of the Drilling Unit (including Rig 21) is also reproduced hereunder: '"Mobilismion and Mobilisation Fee ('ontractor shall notify Operator when it is prepared to commence mobilisation of the Drilling Unit from Muscat, Oman. Within thirty days of receipt of Contractor's notice of readiness, Operator shall instruct Contractor to commence mobilisation. and Contractor shall forthwith ship the Drilling Unit to the port of entry (Kandla or Bombay). Contractor shall be compensated for the mobilisation of the Drilling Unit from its place of origin by a mobilisation fee payable within thirty days following the commencement date."

32Copy pinpoint32. It also noted that apart from the aforesaid mobilisation fee stipulated in the aforesaid two contracts, the ONGC had undertaken to pay compensation based on operating rate of US$ 24,550 per 24 hours a day for all operating time and US $ 24,060 as non operating rate per H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 423 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

day relating to Sedco 252 Rig. Similarly operating rate - RI and stand by rnte - R2 was also separately stipulated in the other contract dated July 12, 1986 relating to Rig-21 etc.

33Copy pinpoint33. Thereafter, the !TAT pointed out that even as per the assessee, there was no dispute about the applicability of Section 44BB of the Act in relation to payments made by the ONGC under the aforesaid agreements by way of operating charges and other payments made by ONGC to the assessee except in relation to mobilisation fee and reimbursement of certain other expenses as according to the assessee, these payments were not in the nature offee (income) but reimbursement of expc•nscs only. This argument is dealt with by the !TAT, taking note of the provisions of Section 44BB of the Act. The ITAT concluded that it was a special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration of mineral oils, effect whereof was explained in Departmental Circular No. 495 dated September 22, 1987. It fmther noted that agreements between ONGC and the assessee were indivisible in nature as per which entire payments had been agreed to be made by ONGC for supply of drilling unit including the rigs, for operating those rigs, and for providing experts and other personnel for operating those rigs. Therefore, all these payments were deemed to be the profits and gains of business for the purposes of Section 44BB of the Act and 10% thereof was to be treated as income chargeable to tax. Section 44BB of the Act does not provide that separate consideration mentioned in the Agreement for transportation of the drilling units/rigs from their present location to the designated location in India would be excluded from the correct amount of gross receipts on which I 0% profit rate is required to be applied. The !TAT held that the mobilisation fee paid by ONGC to the assessee had no nexus with the actual amount incurred by the asscssce for transportation of drilling units/rigs and, therefore, it could not be said that this payment was made for reimbursement of actual expenditure.

34Copy pinpoint34. This is the summary of the rationale given by the lTAT in support of its conclusion, as can be seen from the following detailed G discLL~sion:

"2.14 The aforesaid Sec. 44BB making a special provision for computing profits and gains in conrwction with the business of exploration of mineral oils has been inserted by the Finance Act, H

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I I S.C.R.

A 1987 with retrospective effect from I" April, 1983. The scope and effoct of new Sec. 44BB was explained in Departmental Circular No. 495 dated 22"' September, 1987. It has been mentioned in the said Circular that a number of complications were involved in the computation of taxable income of a taxpayer ~ngaged in the business of providing services and facilities in B c·onncetion with or supply of Plant & Machinery on hire, used or to be used in the exploration for and exploitation of mineral oils. Section 44BB was introduced with a view to simplifying the relevant provisions which provide for determining the income of such tax-payers at IO'Yo of the aggregate of certain amounts, which c have been specified in the said Section. The provisions of Section 441313 were amended by the Finance Act, 1988 withrctrospective effect w.e.f. I" April, 1983 which clarifies that applicability of Section 44138 will be restricted to the cases of only non-resident tax-payers. It is clear from the language used in Section 44BB(2)(a) that the amount referred to in Section 44BB(I) on which profits have to be ealculated@l0% will be the aggregate of amounts paid or payable to the taxpayer or to any person on his behalf whether in or out oflndia on account of the provisions of such services or facilities. 2.15 A perusal of the relevant Agreements executed between the appellant company and ONGC clearly reveals that both the Agreements arc indivisible contracts. It is true that mobilisation fee and operating charges have been separately indicated in the said Agreements but the entire payments have been agreed to be mude by ONGC for supply of the Drilling Unit including the Rigs, F fi.ir operating these Rigs, and for providing experts and other personnel for operating those rigs etc. Section 44BB specifically provides that the aggregate of the amounts referred to in sub- sc·ction (2) of Section 44BB will be adopted as the basis for calculating profits @I 0%, which shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head G "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession". It docs not provide that separate consideration mentioned in the Agreement for transportation of the Drilling Unit/Rig from their present location to the designated location in India will be excluded from the aggr~gate amount of gross receipts on which I 0% profit rate is H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 425 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.)

required to be applied. ONGC has made the entire payment including the mobilisation fee, opemting charges, daily hire on non operating days etc. for availing the services and facilities and the supply of Plant & Machinery on hire agreed to be provided by the appellant company to ONGC. The mobilisation fee paid by ONGC to the appe Hant company has no nexus with the actual amount incurred by the appellant company for tmnsportation of the Drilling Unit/Rigs to the specified drilling location in India. Even if the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant company would have been substantially less, ONGC was liable to pay the fixed amount of mobilisation fee stipulated in the respective Agreements."

35Copy pinpoint35. Before the High Comt, argument of the assessee was that c amount of mobilisation charges cannot be included in the amount referred to under sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act as the mobilisation charges represent reimbursement of expenses incurred for transportation of drilling units ofrigs from outside India to designated drilling places in India and the payment has also not been made in India. In support of his D submission, apatt from other judgments, heavy reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in lsllikawajima-Harima Heavy llldustries Ltd. case. The High Court noted that in the said case, the assessee was a Japancsc company, inter alia. engaged in the business of construction of storage tanks as also engineering etc. It formed consortium along with fow other Japanese companies and one subsidiary company of the E Japanese company. This consortium had entered into an agreement with an Indian company on January 19, 2001 for setting up a Liquefied Naturnl Gas (LNG) receiving, storage and degasification facility at Dahej in the State of Gujarat. A supplementary agreement was also entered by the parties on March 19, 2001. It was a turnkey project. At the same time, role and responsibility of each member of the consortium was scparntely specified and each of the members of the consortium was to receive separate payments. Insofar as appcllant-asscssee is concerned, it. was to develop, design, engineer and procure equipment, materials and supplies to reject and construct storage tanks of 5 MMTPAcapacity, with potential expansion of lOMMTPA capacity at .the specified tempcrnturc. i.e., 200 degree celsius. The arrangement also included marine facilities (jetty and island breakwater) for transmission and supply of LNG to purchaser; to test and commission facilities relating to receipt and unloading, storage and regasification of LNG and to send out H

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I I S.C.R.

A rcgasified LNG by means ofa turnkey fixed lump sum price time certain engineering procurement, construction and commission contract. The contract indisputably involved: (i) offshore supply, (ii) offshore services, (iii) onshore supply, (iv) onshore services and (v) construction and erection. The price was payable for offshore supply and offshore services in US dollars, whereas that of onshore supply as also onshore B services and construction and erection partly in US dollars and partly in Indian rupees.

36Copy pinpoint36. The High Court noted that while determining the tax liability of the said foreign company, this Court had taken into consideration Section 5(2). Section 9(l)(i) and Section 9(l)(vii) of the Act and c considered the question of imposition of tax on income arising from a business connection of the asscssce. Holding that income is not taxable in India. the Court premised the conclusion, inter alia, on the ground that as per dause (a) of Explanation I to Section 9(1 )(i) of the Act, only such pa11 of income as is attributable to the operations carried out in India, is D taxabh: in India and further that sufficient territorial nexus between the rendition of services and territorial limits of India is necessary to make the income taxable. As far as offshore supply and otlshore services in US$ are concerned, it was done outside the territory of India and the payment was also made to the assessee (a foreign company) in US$ outside India, said payment was not taxable as it was not "income" E arising from a business connection of the said asscssce.

37Copy pinpoint37. The High Court, after taking note of the aforesaid judgment, has held that it is not applicable in the instant case. Reason given is that in Is/lilwwajima-Harima Heavy l11d11stries Ltd., the Court had dealt with the assessment of a non-resident company on its income as per the F provisions of Sections 5 and 9 of the Act and these sections arc not attracted in the instant case, as the same is governed by Section 44BB of the Act. This is the material distinction, in the opinion of the High Court, the manner in which the same is discussed needs to be reproduced. Thus, wc hereby quote the relevant portion of the said discussion: G ....... TI1ereforc, section 5 and section 9 both are aimed a the income for the wxability under section 4 of the Act, while section 44BB docs not take into Accow11 the income for calculating the aggregate amount t calculate 10 percent profit and gains. Profit and gains is u type of income to be taxed under a legal fiction, i.e., @10 percent H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 427 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

of the amow1t specified in sub-section (2) of section44BB. Section A 44BB is a special provision relating to non-resident assessee who is providing 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 or outside India. The section is a complete code in itself. Thus, the reliance placed B by Sri Porus Kaku, learned Counsel for the assessee, is misplaced as we have observed that the amount referred in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB are four types of amounts and all the four types of amounts are mutually inclusive and has to be taken into account either all of them or any of them and its clauses themselves provide that whether the payment is made inside India or outside India. c 17.ln tl1e present case, a finding has been recorded by the !TAT that it was not in dispute before the Tribunal that the payment was made to the appellant company outside India and the mobilization fee as claimed by the assessee was paid to the appellant by ONGC has no nexus with the actual amount incurred by the appellant company for transp01tation of drilling units of rigs to the specified drilling locations in India. Hence, the mobilization fee is not the reimbursement of expenditure. ONGC was liable to pay a fixed sum as stipulated in the contract regardless of actual expenditure which may be incurred by the asscssce company for the purpose. In view of the fictional taxing provision contained under Section 44BB. the Assessing Officer was right in adding the amount of Rs. 99,04,000/- for the Assessment Year 1986-87 and amount worth Rs. 64.64,530/- for the Assessment Year 1987- 88 received by the asscsscc towards mobilization charges for the purpose of imposing income tax and CIT (Appeals) and !TAT F were also right in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer."

38Copy pinpoint38. We fed that High Cowt may not be entirely correct in law in excluding the provisions of Sections 5 and 9 in those cases where the assessmcnl is opted by the assesscc under Section 44BB of the Act. Submissions of learned counsel for the assessees arc justified to the G extent that Section 44BB of the Act is a special provision providing computation mechanism for computing profits and gains in case of non- resident asscssce engaged in activities relating to business of exploration of mineral oil etc. At the same time Sections 4,5 and 9 of the Act which deal with charging section, total income and income of non-resident which H

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l 1 S.C.R.

A arises or deem to arise in India cannot be sidetracked. These are the provisions which bring a particular income within the net ofincome tax. Therefore, it is imperative that a pa11icular income is covered by the charging provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act. Indian Income Tax Act, admittedly, follows a territorial system of taxation. As per this system only that income of a non-resident is taxable in India which is B attributable to operations within the Indian Territory. Therefore, in the first instance it is to be seen whether a pa11icular income arises or accrues or deem to arise or accrue within India. In order to seek this answer, the principles contained in Section 9 have to be applied only when it becomes an income taxable in India as per Section 9, in case of non-resident, the c question of computation of the said income would arise. To recapitulate the scheme of the Act in this behalf, it may be stated that Section 4 is the charging section for levying a tax on the income of any person under the Act and provides that income-tax shall be levied at the rates provided by the Finance Act on the 'total income' of the previous year of every person. The expression 'total income' has becndcfincd in Section 2(45) 0 of the Act to mean the total amount of income referred to in Section 5 computed in the manner laid down under the Act.

39Copy pinpoint39. The s~ope of the total iocome of any person, which could be subjected to tax under the provisions of the Act, is defined under Section 5 of the Act and dependent upon the residential status of the persons. E Section 5(1) provides the scope of'total income' in the case ofresidents, whereas Section 5(2) provides the scope of'total income' in the case of non-residents. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, subject to the provisions of this Act, the 'total income' of any previous year of non-resident includes: F Income which is received or deemed to be received in India in such year or on behalfof such person; or Income which 'accrues or arises' or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year.

40Copy pinpoint40. Section 9 enumerates the income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. There are two broad categories oftaxability of income provided under this Section, i.e., Business Income and income from interest or royalty or fees for technical services (FTS).

41Copy pinpoint41. Section 9(1 )(i) provides that income is to be deemed to have H accrued or arising in India i !'the income is accruing directly or indirectly

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 429 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERVT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

through any business connection in India or from any property rn India A or from any asset or source of income in India or any capital asset situated in India (referred as business income). Explanation !(a) to Section 9( I )(i) of the Act provides an exclusion in the case of operations which arc not carried out in India. The explanation provides that the income of the business deemed under this B clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only that part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India. Thus, business income earned by non-resident is chargeable to tax in India only to the extent reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India. c

42Copy pinpoint42. It is. however, pertinent to point out that Section 44BB(2) makes certain receipts as "deemed income" for the purposes of taxation in the said provision. Therefore, aid of this provision is to be necessarily taken to determine whether a particular amount will be "income" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act. Likewise, Section 44BB(2) also acts as guide to determine whether a particular income is attributed as income occurred in India. Section 44BB of the Act provides for special provision for computing profits and gains. However, that would not mean that if the income is to be computed under this provision, we have to give a go-by to Sections 5 and 9 of the Act. To this extent, remarks of the High Court may not be correct. Law in this behalf is settled by the judgment of this Court in A. S1111yasi R1w case as can be discerned from the following discussion in the said judgment. "We arc further of the view that the basis ofa charge relating to income tax is laid down in Sections 4 to 9 of the Act. Section 4 is the charging section. Income-tax is levied in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. Section 5 deals with the scope oftotal income. Section 6 deals with the residence in India. Section 7 deals with the income deemed to be received. Section 8 deals with dividend income. Section 9 deals with the income deemed to accrue or arise in India. G xxx xxx xxx The crucial words in Section 9(1) to the effect that "all income accruing or arising. whether directlv or indii~c1/v, through or (rom cmv business co1111ec1ion" occurred in Section 42 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 as well. The said section came up for H

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R

A consideration before this Court in Ang/o-Fr~nch Textile Co. Ltd. v. C/T[(l953) 23 ITR 101. .. xxx xxx The counsel for the revenue Dr. Gaurishankar vehemently contended before us that Section 44AC read with Section 206C B are only machinery provisions and not charging sections. We see force in this pica. The charge for the levy of the income that accrued or arose is laid by the charging sections, viz., Sections 5 to 9 and not by virtue of Section 44AC or section 206C. .. xxx .'(XX xxx c However, the denial of relief provided by sections 28 to 43C to the particular businesses or trades dealt with in Section 44AC calls for a different consideration. Even, according to the revenue, the provisions (sections 44AC and 206C) arc only 'machinery provisions'. lfso, why should the normal reliefs afforded to all asscssees be denied to such traders? Prima facie, all asscssces similarly placed under the Income Tax Act are entitled to equal treatment. In the matter of granting various reliefs provided under sections 28 to 43C, the assessees carrying on business are similarly placed and should there be a law, negativing such valuable reliefs to a p:uticular trade or business, it should be shown to have some basis and fair and rational. It has not been shown as to why the persons carrying on business in the particular goods specified in section 44AC arc denied the reliefs available to others. No pica is put forward by the revenue that these trades are distinct and different even for the grant of reliefs under Sections 28 to 43C. F The denial of such relicfa to trades specified in section 44AC. available to other asscssccs, has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Legislature. (emphasis supplied)"

43Copy pinpoint43. Having corrected the position in law, by emphasising that Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act are to be kept in mind even in those cases G where assessment is done under Section 44BB of the Act, we arc oflhc opinion that the argument of the assessees that Section 44BB is only a computation provision, is also not entirely justified.

44Copy pinpoint44. ln the first blush, assessecs may appear to be correct in their contentions that Section 44BB falls in Chapter IV of the Act. Insofar as H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 431 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. S!KRI, J.]

computation of income from 'Profits or Gains of Business or Profession' A is concerned, it has to be computed as per the provisions of Sections 28 to 430(2). However, certaiff provisions are made for providing special mechanism for computing the income on presumptive basis in case of non-resident and it includes Section 44BB as well.

45Copy pinpoint45. Having put the law in prospective, we need to examine as to whether mobilisation charges received by the assessees can be treated as 'income' under Section 5 of the Act and would fall within the four . corners of Section 9, namely, whether it can be attributed as having arisen or deemed to arise in India. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the assessees is that the amount was received by way of reimbursement of expenses for the operation carried outside India and the payment was also received outside India. It is on this premise, entire edifice is built to argue that it is not an "income" and, in any case, not taxable in India at the hands of the assessecs which are foreign entities.

46Copy pinpoint46. We have already reproduced above Clause 3 .2 of the Agreement dated September 3, 1985 and Clause 4.2 of the Agreement D dated July 12, 1986. Clause 3.2 of the Agreement dated September 3, 1985 pertains to providing the Shallow Dash Water Jack Up Rig against which payment was made to the assessees. This Clause says that the assessccs shall be paid 'mobilisation fee' for the mobilisation of drilling unit from its present location in Portugal to the well location designated by ONGC, offshore Mumbai, India. Fixed amount is agreed to be paid which is mentioned in the said Clause. The aforesaid mobilisation fee was payable to the assessccs after the jacking up of the drilling at the designated location and ready to spud the well. After the aforesaid operation, asscssces were required to raise invoice and ONGC was supposed to make the payment within 30 days of the receipt of this invoice. Insofar as Clause 4.2 of Agreement dated July 12, 1986 is concerned, it related to mobilisation of drilling unit. Here again, 'mobilisation fee' was payable for the mobilisation of the drilling unit from the place of its origin to the port of entry (Kandla Port, Mumbai). What follows from the above is that a fixed amount of mobilisation fee was payable under the aforesaid contracts as "compensation". Contracts specifically describe the aforesaid amounts as 'fee'. In this hue, we have to consider as to whether it would be treated as "income" under Section 5 of the Act and can be attributed as income earned in India as per Section 9 of the Act. For this purpose, Section 44BB(2) has to be invoked. H

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l 1 S.C.R.

A 4 7. Section 44BB starts with non-obstantc clause. and the fonnula contained therein for computatton of income ts tu be applied irrespective of the provisions of Sections 28 to 4 J and Sections 43 and 43A of the Act. It is not in dispute that assessecs were assessed under the said provision which is applicable in the instant case. For assessment unucr this provision, a sum equal to i 01/'0 of the aggregate of the an1ounts B specified in sub-scctwn (2) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head 'profits and gains of the business or protcssion ·.Sub-section (2) mentions two kinds of amounts which shall be deemed as profits and gains of the business chargeable to tax in India. Sub-clause (a) thereof relates to amount paid or payable to c the assessce or any person on his behalf on account of 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. Thus. all amounts pertaining to the aforesaid activity which arc received on account of provisions of services and facilities in connection with the said facility arc treated as prolits and gains of the business. This clause clarifies that the amount so paid shall be taxable whether these arc received in India or outside India. Clause (bl deals with amount received or deemed to be received in India in connection with such services and facilities as stipulated therein. Thus. whereas clause (a) mentions the amount which is paid or payable, clause (b) deals with the amounts which arc received or deemed to be received in India. In respect of amount paid or payable under clause (a) of sub-scdion (2), it is immaterial whether these arc paid in India or outside India. On the other hand. amount received or deemed to be rccciwd have to be in India.

48Copy pinpoint48. From the bare reading of the clauses, amount paid under the aforesaid contracts as mobilisation foe on account of provision of services and facilities in connection with the extraction etc. of mineral oil in India and against the supply of plant and machinery on hire used for such extraction, clause (a) stands attmctcd. Thus, this provision contained in Section 44BB has to be read in conjunction with Sections 5 and 9 of the G Act and Sections 5 and 9 of the Act cannot be read in isolation. The aforesaid amount paid to the asscssces as mobilisation fee is treated as pro tits and gains of business and, therefore, it would be "income" as per Section 5. This provision also treats this income as earned in India, fictionally, thereby satisfying the test of Section 9 of the Act as well. H

SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THR. IT'S 433 CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. CIT, MEERUT [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

49Copy pinpoint49. The Tribunal has rightly commented that Section 44BB of the A Act is a special pcovision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration of mineral oils. Its purpose was explained by the Department vidc its Circular No. 495 dated September 22, 1987, namely, to simplify the computation of taxable income as number of comp Iications were involved for those engaged in the business ofproviding B services and facilities in connection with, or supply ofplant and machinery on hire used or to be used in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral etc. Instead of going into the nitigrities of such computation as per the normal provisions cont<tincd in Sections 28 to 41 and Sections 43 and 43A of the Act, the Legislature has simplified the procedure by providing that tax shall be pai<l@I 0% of the 'aggregate of the amounts c specified in sub-section (2)' and those amounts are 'deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax ... '. It is a matter of record that when income is computed under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession', rate of tax payable on the said income is much higher. However, the Legislature provided a simple formula, D namely, treating the amounts paid or payable (whether in or out oflndia) and amount received or deemed to be received in India as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB as the deemed profits and gains. Thereafter, on such deemed profits and gains (treating the same as income), a concessional flat rate of l O'Yo is charged to tax. In these circumstances, the AO is supposed to apply the provisions of Section E 44BB of the Act, in order to find out as to whether a particular amount is deemed im:omc or not. When it is found that the amount paid or payable (whether in or out oflndia), Cir amount received or deemed to be received in India is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act, by fiction created under Section 44BB of the Act, it becomes F 'income' under Sections 5 and 9 of the Act as well.

50Copy pinpoint50. It is stated at the cost ofrepetition that, in the instant case, the amount which is paid to the asscssces is towards mobilisation fee. It docs not mention that the same is for reimbursement of expenses. In fact, it is a fixed amount paid which may be less or more than the expenses incurred. Incurring of expenses, therefore, would be immaterial. It is G also to be borne in mind that the contract in question was indivisible. Having regard to these facts in the present case as per which the case of the asscssccs get covered under the aforesaid provisions, we do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the assessees. H

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) I I S.C.R.

A Therefore, the ultimate conclusion drawn by the AO, which is upheld by" all other Authorities 1s correct, though some of the observations of the High Court may not be entirely correct which have been straightened by us in the above discussion. For our aforesaid reasons, we uphold the conclusion. Resultantly, all the appeals oftbe assessees arc dismissed.

51Copy pinpoint51. In this batch of appeals, Civil Appeal No. 3695 of2012 is the solirnry appeal wl)ich is preferred by the Director of Income Tax, New Delhi (Revenue) against the judgment oftbe High Court ofUttarakhand. The computation of incom,· of the assessce was done under Section 44BB of the Act. However, the amount which was sought to be taxed was reimbursement of cost of tools lost in hole by ONGC. It is, thus, c clear that this was not the amount which was covered by sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act as ONGC had lost certain tools belonging to the asscsscc, and had compensated for the said loss by paying the amount in question. On these facts, conclusion of the High Court is correct. Even otherwise, the tax effect is Rs.15, 12.344/-. Therefore, D Civil Appeal No. 3695 of2012 filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Dl'.,. ika Gujral Appeals disposed of.