Commissioner Of Income Tax. ..……… v. Mr. P.r. Mullick, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALIncome Tax Appeal No. 25 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax. ..………. Appellant Versus EMGS Project Office. ...………. Respondent Income Tax Appeal No. 26 of 2015Commissioner of Income Tax. ..………. Appellant Versus EMGS Project Office. ...………. Respondent &Income Tax Appeal No. 35 of 2015Commissioner of Income Tax. ..………. Appellant Versus M/s Expro Gulf Limited. ...………. Respondent For the appellant / revenue:Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate. For the respondent / assessees:Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocates Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Dated: 6thAugust, 2015 K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessees. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has found that the amounts in question are covered by Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, i.e. the amounts represent works like drilling of exploration wells, etc. There is no dispute that there is a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2007 and connected cases (Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & another). In the light of the same, since the amounts received for the works are liable to be reckoned under Section 44BB, the substantial questions of law, which are raised, are to be answered against the appellant / revenue. 3. Accordingly, the appeals fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. G (V.K. Bist, J.) 06.08.2015 (K.M. Joseph, C. J.) 06.08.2015