TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsolute owner of immovable properties bearing No.96 and 104, P-2, EPIP Industrial Area, Whitefield, Bangalore. It consists of land and building forming an Information Technology Park developed by the petitioner. Respondent No.1, namely, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, represented by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, the 2nd respondent herein, had introduced a Scheme known as the "Industrial Park Scheme, 2002". In terms of the Scheme, entrepreneurs were entitled to establish an industrial park and as a direct benefit thereto were entitled to tax benefits as provided for under the Scheme. The petitioner had submitted an application for establishment of an industrial park under the Scheme and chose the "Automatic Route", ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t petition is filed. 3. This Court, while entertaining the present petition, had granted an interim order of stay of operation of the impugned order. The respondents have entered appearance and have filed statement of objections disputing the claim of the petitioner. 4. In order to examine whether there was indeed a violation of the conditions, it is necessary to note the provisions of the Scheme, which is available at Annexure 'A' to the petition. Under paragraph 5, the Automatic Approval Route is defined and the manner in which an application shall be made, as also the criteria for automatic approval is provided for under paragraph 6. And under paragraph 6(f), it is specifically laid down as follows:- "(f) No single unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... approved proposals." 5. It is evident that the Empowered Committee would consider each application on a case to case basis and would on its merit grant approval subject to such other conditions as deemed fit by it. It is those conditions, which are imposed by the Committee, which would be relevant; As seen from the approval granted by the Committee, which is at Annexure 'H'. The contents of the approval granted, are as follows: " I am directed to refer to your application dated 09-07-2005. This is to convey the approval of the Government of India to your proposal for setting up an Industrial Park, in terms of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, notified by this Department in exercise of powers under Section 80 IA, S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act, 1961 are to be availed. 4. The conditions mentioned in Para 1 above are as per the proposal made by the undertaking and are within the provisions of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, notified by this Department vide S.O. No.354(E) dated 1.4.2002. The conditions mentioned in this letter and those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, should be adhered to during the period when benefits under the Scheme are to be availed. The Government may withdraw the above approval in case of failure to comply with any of the conditions. 5. Following conditions in Para 9 of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, may particularly be noted for suitable compliance: (i) The income tax benefits under Sub Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove that there is no such condition imposed as is the case in respect of applications filed under the Automatic Approval Route. In that, the specific condition under 6(f) is that no allocable area exceeding 50% of the Industrial Park shall be occupied by a single unit. The allegation against the petitioner in the impugned order is that the petitioner had allotted an area comprising more than 90% of the area in favour of one entity, namely, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). The petitioner would point out that not only did no such condition was imposed in so far as the petitioner's park was concerned, that even if such a condition was to be made applicable, TCS was in turn not operating all the 16 entities, which may be under its umbrella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n statement in this regard. And it is also not demonstrated that 16 units said to be under the umbrella of TCS are independent taxable units as would be the requirement under the Scheme to bring a unit under the definition of 'independent unit' and since the petitioner admittedly cannot retract the statements made in the application or undertaking in the affidavit, the petition itself is misconceived and ought to be rejected outright. Apart from the above, other contentions are taken in the statement of objections to demonstrate that the petitioner is not in a position to deny that the so called independent units under the umbrella of TCS are indeed a single entity and not independent taxable units as sought to be claimed. 8. In ....