Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Petition Dismissed: Gov't Withdraws Tax Exemption for Non-Compliance with ECB Approval Terms</h1> <h3>Reliance Industries Ltd. And Another Versus Union Of India And Another.</h3> Reliance Industries Ltd. And Another Versus Union Of India And Another. - [2002] 258 ITR 143, 176 CTR 443, 124 TAXMANN 246 Issues Involved:1. Approval and Utilization of External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs).2. Exemption from Withholding Tax under Section 10(15)(iv)(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Compliance with Terms and Conditions of ECB Approvals.4. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption by the Central Government.5. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Central Government and Assessing Authorities.Detailed Analysis:1. Approval and Utilization of External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs):The first petitioner, a public limited company, sought permission to raise ECBs amounting to US $300 million to finance their projects. Initial approvals were granted for US $150 million each. The petitioner entered into a syndicated loan agreement and raised the balance through a bond issue. They expended approximately US $325 million from their rupee resources towards project costs while awaiting approval. Subsequent approvals for additional ECBs were granted, and the funds were deposited in bank accounts abroad as per RBI guidelines.2. Exemption from Withholding Tax under Section 10(15)(iv)(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The petitioner applied for and was granted exemption from withholding tax under Section 10(15)(iv)(f) of the Income-tax Act. This exemption was contingent upon compliance with the terms and conditions of the ECB approvals. The Central Government granted further approvals with the condition that the payment of interest would be exempt from withholding tax under the said section.3. Compliance with Terms and Conditions of ECB Approvals:The petitioner requested that expenditures incurred prior to the approvals be treated as part utilization of ECB proceeds. The second respondent required clarification and documentary evidence to support the eligibility of these expenditures. The petitioner argued that the funds drawn against ECBs were fungible and could be adjusted towards expenditures incurred from their rupee resources.4. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption by the Central Government:The second respondent rejected the petitioner's proposal to utilize ECB proceeds retained abroad for prepayment/buyback of outstanding ECBs, citing non-compliance with existing guidelines. A notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to withdraw the tax exemption granted under Section 10(15)(iv)(f) due to breach of the terms of ECB approvals. The petitioner contended that the withdrawal was unjustified as they had complied with the conditions and that the exemption should not be conditional upon the specific end-use of the proceeds.5. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Central Government and Assessing Authorities:The Central Government's authority to grant and withdraw exemptions under Section 10(15)(iv)(f) was challenged by the petitioner. The court held that the Central Government had the jurisdiction to impose terms and conditions for the approval of ECBs and the corresponding tax exemptions. The court emphasized that the exemptions were granted to serve a public purpose, specifically the industrial development of India, and any breach of the conditions justified the withdrawal of the exemption.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Central Government's decision to withdraw the tax exemption due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the terms of the ECB approvals. The court found no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the decision, emphasizing that the exemptions were contingent upon the specified utilization of the ECB funds for industrial development.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found