C/o M. Lal & Associates, L107, 2nd Floor, Lajpat NagarII, Gate No. 2, 1st Floor, New Delhi. GIR/PAN : AAKCS9967K (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No. 59/Del/2013 [In ITA No. 4619/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 200809 M/s. Scorpion Courageous Ltd., Vs. DDIT, Circle2(2), New Delhi C/o SRBC & Associates, 16 th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai. GIR/PAN : AAKCS9967K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR) Assessee by Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Date of hearing 06.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 25.04.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are directed against order dated 25/06/2012 of the learned Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)XXIX, New Delhi, in respect of the assessment year 200809. The 2 ITA No. 4619/Del/2012 & C.O. No. 59/Del/2013 grounds of appeal as modified by the Revenue vide letter dated 31st July, 2013, are as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theCIT(A) has erred in holding that the Professional charges received by the assessee were not in the nature of fees for technical services as defined in sec. 9(1 )(vii) of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theCIT(A) has erred in holding thatthe income of the assessee was not taxable under the provisions of sec 44DA r.w.s. 115 of the Act, 1961, even though the provisions of sec 44DA r.w.s. 115A of the Act, 1961, even though the nature of services rendered by the assessee were technical in nature and were not for a project undertaken by the assessee, as required by explanation 2 to section 9(1 )(vii). 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theCIT(A) has erred in holding thatthe income of the assessee was taxable under the presumptive provisions of sec 44BB and ignoring the fact that taxability u/s 44BB shall not apply in respect of income referred to in section 44DA in view of the clarificatory proviso to sec. 44BB and sec 44DA. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that proviso to section 44DA brought about by the Finance Act, 2011 was only clarificatory in nature and its application has to be read into the main provisions with effect from the time the main provision came in to effect in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sedco Forex International Drilling v/sCIT, delivered on 17.11.2005. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest charged u/s 234B by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jacabs Civil Incorporation/ Mitsubishi Corporation (2010) ITR 578 (Delhi) which has not been accepted by the department against which SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court 6. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time or before the hearing of the appeal. 2. The facts in brief as culled out from the records are that the assessee company was incorporated in 'Bermuda' and was engaged in business of providing drilling rigs on hire and other drilling related services. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into a contract dated 30/06/2007 with M/s 'Cairn Energy India Private Limited' (In short 'Cairn') for providing drilling rigs and other related services. The assessee filed return of income on 23rd of March 2009, declaring total income of Rs. 15,58,98,454/. The income received by the assessee from such hire of rigs as well as connected services was offered to tax under the provisions of section 44BB of the Act