2013 (5) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent regarding the maintainability of the appeal filed by the revenue to intervene in the Company Petition no.11/2012 and Company Petition no.12/2012 on the ground that the Income Tax authorities had a right to be heard since the scheme if sanctioned by this Court, would entail huge losses to the revenue and also to the State and the Central Government. The learned Single Judge, after relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jindal Iron & Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [Co. Application No. 123 of 2004, dated 2-9-2004] and another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, who had followed the judgment in the case of AVM Capital Services (P.) Ltd., In re  was pleased to reject the said application for intervention. The c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the case of "Jindal Iron & Steel Ltd." (supra) and it was submitted that in the said case the tax liability had not been crystallized. In the case of "AVM Capital Services (P.) Ltd." (supra), the question was whether tax planning was permissible and whether it amounted to tax evasion. It was submitted that the said issue which was involved in the case of "AVM Capital" is not involved in the present case. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and no reliance was placed on the said two judgments. It was then contended that MALCO was registered in Chennai and that the State would tend to lose a lot of revenue if Sesa Goa was merged with MALCO. 4. On the other hand, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate appearin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Judge in case of "Jindal Iron & Steel Ltd." (supra) and in the case of "AVM Capital Services (P.) Ltd." (supra). 6. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The ratio in the case of "S.R.F Ltd." (supra) cannot be applied in the present case. Perusal of the facts of the said case reveals that question which fell for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the board had a right to be heard. The Apex Court in paragraph 8 has observed as under: "It is true that no notice was issued by the Board either to the Central Government or to the CBDT. The Central Government shall be required to pass an order under s. 72A of the tax benefits and that, therefore, it is entitled to be heard. Since t....