TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) The applicant intends to invest in a 100% subsidiary company in India under the prevailing FDI regulations. (3) This Indian subsidiary company of the applicant intends to setup consortium by way of partnership firm under the Partnership Act, 1932 with another Indian Company namely, MEP Infra Private Limited (MEPPL). (4) This consortium (partnership firm) proposes to acquire the undertaking of MEP Infra Private Limited which is engaged in the business of operating and maintaining 20 road bridges in Mumbai and in consideration it collects toll at five Mumbai entry points pursuant to a contract dated 19th November, 2010 entered into with the Maharashtra State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under section 80IA(4)(i) to the partnership firm. (ii) Whether the newly formed partnership will be considered as a consortium of companies and be eligible for deduction in respect of profits and gains from undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development etc. which is equal to hundred percent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years out of twenty years? (iii) Whether the twenty years period referred to in the proviso to section 80IA(2) of the Act, it to be reckoned from the date when the MEPPL (whose undertaking which is intended to be transferred to the partnership firm) entered into the contract with MSRDC for oper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is no linkage between the collection at entry points and usage / utilization of each bridge. (vi) Whether the Undertaking so transferred will be treated as a new undertaking and will be eligible for the benefits of section 801A(4) as the Undertaking so transferred fulfills the conditions mentioned in Section 801A(4)(i) namely; (a) It is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies; (b) It has entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany intends to invest in a 100% subsidiary company in India under the prevailing FDI regulations and the Indian subsidiary company of the applicant intends to set up consortium by way of partnership firm under the Partnership Act with another Indian company namely, MEP Infra Pvt. Limited (MEPPL) and ultimately the applicant company will be involved in transaction with the Indian concerns and therefore, there will be issue of tax liability in India. 5. We have considered the rival contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and the Revenue and also examined the documents placed before us. At the outset we have noticed that the applicant Umesh H Ashar is an individual whereas the statement of facts mentions the applicant as a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Doypack Systems Private Limited v. Union of India: (1988 SC 782) and of the Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT (347ITR272) for interpretation of the expression "in relation to employed in sub clause (i) of section 245N(a) of the Act. We do not find relevance of those decisions in this case. In order to bring in the question within the scope of section 245N of the Act, there has to be either a transaction undertaken or proposed transaction to be undertaken by the non-resident applicant. This is not the case in the present application. "Transaction" or "proposed transaction" are not the same as mere intention. In this case the applicant intends to invest i....