TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner to furnish an approval with regard to the petitioner company, which is the investor company. Insofar as the investee company is concerned, the petitioner had already placed on record an approval under Section 10(23G) dated 18.11.2004 In the aforesaid circumstances, there is absolutely no reason for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the said Act. The purported reason for re-opening does not exist. Consequently, we set aside and quash the notice dated 30.03.2011 as also the order dated 21.11.2011 - Decided in favor of assessee. - W. P. (C) 8645/2011 & CM 19553/2011 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2013 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Somnath Shukla for Mr Ajay Vohra For the Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e objections were disposed of by virtue of an order dated 21.11.2011. In the said order dated 21.11.2011, which is also impugned in this writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), New Delhi, inter alia, observed as under:- 6.1 From the above, it is clear that no approval was granted to the assessee company. The assessee company has furnished wrong evidence as the name of the assessee company appears on the certificate of M/s. RPG Cellular Services Ltd and not RPG Cellular Investment and Holding Pvt Ltd. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for exemption under Section 10(23G) as the Notification filed by the assessee is not in the name of the assessee company. (underlining added) 4. It is the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Holding Private Limited, implying thereby that the approval should have been given in respect of the investor company and not the investee company. 6. We entirely agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the approval and the certificate that is required for exemption under Section 10(23G) of the said Act has to have reference to the investee company and not the investor company. Section 10(23G), as it existed at the relevant time, to the extent relevant, is set out as under:- ( 23G ) any income by way of dividends, other than dividends referred to in section 115-O, interest or long-term capital gains of an infrastructure capital fund or an infrastructure capital company or a co-operative bank from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted by the Central Government is with respect to an enterprise which is wholly engaged in the eligible business. Eligible business has also been defined in the Explanation to Rule 2E as, inter alia , the business referred to in Section 80-IA(4) and which fulfils the conditions specified in Section 80-IA(4). In the present case, this has reference to the investee company which is M/s. RPG Cellular Services Limited. Therefore, the respondents were wrong in requiring the petitioner to furnish an approval with regard to the petitioner company, which is the investor company. Insofar as the investee company is concerned, the petitioner had already placed on record an approval under Section 10(23G) dated 18.11.2004, which is to the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or (c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (6) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. The enterprise/undertaking approved is M/s Aircel Cellular Limited (formerly M/s RPG Cellular Services Ltd and M/s Mobile Telecom Services Ltd), 5th Floor, Spencer Plaza, 769, Anna Salai, Chennai for their project of providing Cellular Mobile Telephone Service in Chennai Metro Service Area as per licence agreement No. 842-21/93-TM dated 30th November, 1994 and as amended vide Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications (VAS CELL) letters F. No. 842-47/2000-VAS/Vol. IV dt 29.01.2001 and 25.09.2001 consequent to Migration to revenue sharing regime of New Telecom Policy -19999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|