IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member &

Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 6026/Del./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Vs DCIT, C/o Nangia & Company, International Taxation, A-109, Sector-136, Circle-1, Noida-201304 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AAACH5154M ITA No. 6171/Del./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 6714/Del./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 DCIT, Vs Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., International Taxation, C/o Nangia & Company, Circle-1, 1^st Floor, IDA, 46, E.C. Road, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AAACH5154M Assessee by: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. Lalchandani, Sh. T. Chanana, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs.

Revenue by: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017 with the Revenue’s cross appeal ITA Nos. 6171/Del/2017 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and the latter’s appeal ITA No.6714/Del/2017 for 2014-15, arise against the CIT(A)-2, Noida’s in case Nos. 48 & 98/CIT(A)-2/2016-17, dated 17.07.2017 and 30.08.2017, in proceedings u/s 143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively.

2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Assessment Year 2013-14:

Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017 and Cross appeal ITA No. 6171/Del/2017

3. Learned counsel submits at the outset that he has instruction from the assessee side not to press it’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017. Dismissed as withdrawn subject to all just exceptions in very terms.

4. Next comes the Revenue’s cross appeal ITA No.

6171/Del/2017 raising the following substantive grounds:

“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by completely overlooking the amended provisions of section 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vii), 44AB, 44DA of the Act which were applicable to the AY under consideration for the services provided by the assessee in respect of Annual Maintenance Contract Services, support for software and training, etc.

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2007) by failing to appreciate that the issue of taxability u/s 44BB vs. 44DA of the Act was not there before the Apex Court, and that the case before the Apex Court pertained to the AY 1985-86, and involved the issue of taxability u/s 44BB vs. 4D of the Act.

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in failing to note that the Memorandum to Finance Bill 2010 makes it clear that any service which falls within the ambit of 44DA, even if it is in connection with prospecting for., or extraction or production of mineral oils as stipulated in section 44BB, has to be assessed u/s 44DA of the Act.

(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the nature of activities and scope of work in respect of the Annual Maintenance Contract Services, support for software and training, etc provided by the assessee lead to the infallible conclusion that the receipts of the assessee were in the nature of FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act.

(v) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in overlooking that the assessee was not engaged in any construction, assembly, mining or like project and had only provided ancillary services, and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ONGC case supra where the dominant purpose of the contract being prospecting, extraction or production