TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessment Year 2009-10, the Petitioner filed its Return of Income declaring a loss of Rs. 15.12 lakhs. During the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2009-01, the Petitioner had issued equity shares inter alia to its non-resident holding company at a premium. However, the Petitioner has not filed Form 3-CEB with its return of income as according to Petitioner, the transaction was not covered by Chapter X of the Act. The Assessing Officer by order dated 28th October, 2011 completed the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the Petitioner's income at Rs. 2 lakhs. 4. On 31st March, 2014, the impugned notice was issued to the Petitioner. The reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice dated 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Capital Partners Mauritius is defined as an international transaction in view of the explanation to the provisions of sec. 92B inserted by the finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2012. Thus the assessee has not reported the transaction of receiving an amount of Rs. 64,59,38,591/- from M/s. Blackstone GPV Capital Partners Mauritius as an international transaction which is mandatory under the I. T. Act. The assessee has received premium of Rs. 1,06,227/- per share from M/s. HDFC Ltd. whereas the assessee charged premium of Rs. 56,642/- per share from its associate enterprise vis M/s. Blackstone GPV Capital Partners Mauritius during the same year. Thus the assessee has received huge premium per share from unrelated parties as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me in respect of the International transaction with its Associated Enterprise viz. non-resident holding company, the Assessing Officer had not formed any opinion with regard to the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the shares issued by the Petitioner Company to its holding Company. 6. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the issue arising in the present proceeding stands concluded in favour of the Petitioner in view of Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2014] 368 ITR 1 This Court in Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) on identical facts has concluded that the issue of shares at premium to its holding company does not give rise to any income chargeable to tax. Thus, the Court has held that Chap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. (supra). In view of the decision of this Court in Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), there can be no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 9. In spite of the above, the Revenue insists on opposing the Petition. The failure to file Form 3 CEB would not by itself lead to the conclusion that there has been an escapement of income. In fact, the Petitioner's understanding that the amount received on account of issue of shares to its holding company would not give rise to income chargeable to tax has been upheld by this Court in Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. (supra). In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the Petition or in not filing Form 3 CEB with its return of income. 10. The ....