आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘सी’ (cid:7008)यायपीठ,च(cid:7382)े ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:7088)ी एबी टी. वक(cid:7417), (cid:7008)याियक सद(cid:7021)य एव ं (cid:7088)ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:7021)य के सम(cid:6979)

BEFORE SHRI ABY T.VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330) / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, The Deputy Commissioner

113, Janpriya Crest, of Income Tax, Pantheon Road, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Egmore, Chennai.

Chennai – 600 008.

PAN: AAACA 3012H ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

(अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant)

अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA (Through Virtual mode)

(cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, dated

13.03.2024 for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the order passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 196l, dated 13.03.2024 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and did not consider the submission made by the assessee which is against the principle of natural justice. (B)The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Ld. AO erred in applying the tax of l0 and 22.5 percentage relating to royalty and fee for technical services respectively and charged interest without appreciating the nature of business of the assessee which is incorrect and bad in law

3. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the mining activity not covered in the explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and payment in relation to mining activity is covered under section 44BB and not under section 115A r.w.s, 44DA of the Act. Further, the same has been considered by the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee’s group companies. (B)The Ld. CITA) ought to appreciate that the payments to a foreign company for services in relation to prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oil will be income chargeable to tax under the provisions of Sec. 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

4. The Ld. CITA) ought to have appreciated the fact that the provisions of the DTAA or ITA as per the section 90 of the Act, which are more beneficial to the assessee shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of tax liability. (B)The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that only 10% of the aggregate receipts during the year will be chargeable to tax as business income and same has been considered by the Ld. AO while issuing the certificate of lower deduction u/s 195(2) of the Act. (C)The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld. AO erred in not considering the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of offshore drilling services, extraction and exploration of mineral oil and natural gas and any services and charges paid to non- residents with respect drilling, exploration of oil or gas activity same is covered under section 44BB of the Act.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld. AO erred in not considering the fact that the assessee has deducted the withholding tax as per the Section 44BB(1) from the remittance made to non-resident service providers which is according to the provision of the Act. (B)The Ld.CIT(A) ought to consider the fact that the specific provision i.e., 44BB of the Act will over-ride the general provision of the Act

6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to consider the fact that as