a) Assessee allotted
shares to its foreign holding company (AE) at a premium of Rs. 8,951 per
share and received the amount against allotment of shares;
b) The AO (Assessing Officer / Tax Officer) referred this transaction to TPO (Transfer Pricing Officer) for determining its ALP. The TPO issued show cause notice to assessee;
c) The assessee contended that Chapter X doesn’t apply to issue of equity
shares as no income arises from issue of equity shares and the transaction is a capital account transaction;
d)
TPO rejected assessee’s contentions relying on retro amendment to
section 92B made by the Finance Act, 2012 by inserting Explanation(i)(c)
and (e) which brings capital financing transactions within the purview
of international transactions and TP provisions of Chapter X;
e)
The TPO determined ALP of shares and
made TP adjustments of 1397.27 crores. The AO passed draft assessment
order wherein he didn’t deal with assessee’s objections. Thus, the
assessee filed the instant writ petition challenging AO’s draft
assessment order.
The High Court disposed off the petition with following directions:
1)
We were not inclined to set aside the draft assessment order of the AO
or the order of the TPO and remand the matter to AO,
because the AO has already filed an affidavit contesting the petition on
merits and justifying the stand that the alleged shortfall in premium
upon issue of shares was chargeable to tax under Chapter X.";
2)
Thus, instead of remanding the matter to the AO to examine this
question, the merits of this question must be considered by DRP;
3) The petitioner would submit before the DRP its preliminary objections to Draft
Assessment Order and the TPO's order within two weeks by raising jurisdictional issues;
4)
The DRP would decide the issue of jurisdiction before considering issue
of valuation raised by the petitioner in its objections filed before
the DRP, of course subject to the additional grounds on jurisdiction
being filed by the petitioner within two weeks;
5) The DRP would decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue within
two months from the date on which the petitioner filed its objections on the question of jurisdiction;
6)
In case the decision of the DRP on the above preliminary issue was
adverse to the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to
challenge the order of the DRP on the preliminary issue in a writ
petition if a case was made out at that stage that the decision of the
DRP was patently illegal, notwithstanding the availability of
alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal
- VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES (P.) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (2013) 39 taxmann.com 201 (Bombay)
No comments:
Post a Comment