TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai ('DRP' for short) raising a net demand of Rs.3738.49 crores, including the interest at Rs.1325.49 crores. 2.1 Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee-applicant, placing a chart containing the break-up of the demand on record, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), Dr. A. M. Singhvi, that the demand, the interest component of which, at roughly 1/3rd of the total, being consequential, arises on account of principally four issues, as under, and that he would proceed issue wise: (a) Assignment of call option on shares : Rs.2100.20 crores (b) Transfer of call transfer business : Rs. 299.54 crores (c) IT enabled services : Rs. 9.77 crores (d) Unabsorbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se (4.1) of the preceding agreement/s, i.e., the 2006 Framework Agreement/s dated 01.03.2006 (Volume 2/pgs. 616-639 & 592-615), placing a sheet enlisting the relevant clauses on record. If anything, the words in the later agreement/s are more precise, conveying what was said over and with reference to two clauses, in one and is, thus, more concise and, rather, better drafted. Referring to the said clauses of the 2007 Agreement, he urged as to how could one even consider this it to be an assignment, which would require at the very minimum an assignee and an assignment deed. There had also been no exercise of the call option during the relevant previous year. On being enquired by the Bench as to how the said agreement/s is relevant inasmuch a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in a company other than whose shares are being transferred, i.e., 'B'. The framework agreements of 2006 & 2007 were also considered by the hon'ble apex court, to hold that this did not constitute an assignment, so as to be considered as a divestiture of interest therein by 'D'. The Revenue, however, considers the observations by the hon'ble court as only obiter dicta and not as its' definite and conclusive findings, on the ground that the same were rendered in a different context. True, but would that be material or relevant, he posed? The assessee had challenged the impugned assessment directly before the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in its writ jurisdiction. Though dismissing the writ petition and di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 08.05.2007, i.e., immediately after the share transfer per SPA took effect, so that the sale of its call center business by the assessee (A) to HWP (India) (a part of the Hutchison Whampoa Limited (HWL) group), a domestic company, is by a company of the Vodafone group and, thus, an associated enterprise (AE). The Revenue's case has no legs to stand on, as the transfer, considered either way, i.e., either prior to or after the transfer of shares on 08.05.2007, the assessee, being a part of Hutchison group upto 07.05.2007, is, by virtue of the deeming of section 92A(2), considered as a part of Hutchison group. It cannot thus be an AE. The DRP findings are at para 10.1 of its order. (c & d) IT enabled services & unabsorbed depreciation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant's favour. The entire amount stands in fact refunded along with interest at the instance of the apex court, taking us through the relevant part of the said decision (at para 92, pg. 2705/Volume 8). The hon'ble courts have gone to the extent of saying that in cases, as the present, where the assessee has a conclusive case; it was justifiable to stay the entire demand irrespective of the financial position. Reference was made by him to the decisions in the cases of Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE [2006] 13 SCC 347 (at pg. 351, para 8); Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 43 (Delhi) (at pgs.51,57); DHL Express (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [2011] 140 TTJ 38 (Mum) (UO) in this regard. Even the CBDT has directed likewise,....