9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the wrong premise that the petitioner had accepted the receipts to be in the nature of revenue receipts - the Ruling of the AAR is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AAR to examine the position – Decided in favour of petitioner. - W. P. (C) 6167/2012, W. P. (C) 7774/2012 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2014 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And Siddharth Mridul,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Ms Husnal Syali, Mr Mayank Nagi, Ms Reeta Mishra, Mr Harkunal Singh and Mr Tarun Singh For the Respondents : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J (Oral) 1. These writ petitions impugn the Ruling dated 27.08.2012 made by the Authority for Advance Rulings under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re transferred to the Initial Escrow Account in the New York Branch of Citi Bank NA. On 13.09.2011 the court at New York finally granted approval and confirmed the settlement which had been arrived at between the Indian company, Pricewaterhouse Coopers and the holders of the American Depository Shares. Thereafter, the money lying in the Initial Escrow Account in New York was transferred to the Qualified Settlement Fund which was to be operated by the lead counsel for the purposes of disbursement to the various parties in favour of whom the settlement was arrived at. 4. We may point that shortly after the settlement was arrived at, as a condition of the settlement, an advance Ruling was invited from the Authority for Advance Rulings with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be evident that the stand of the petitioner was that they were not revenue receipts but capital receipts not chargeable to tax. It was the further case of the petitioner that the settlement amounts would only go towards reducing the cost of acquisition of the American Depository Shares. 7. We are of the view that the Authority for Advance Rulings has rendered its ruling based upon the wrong premise that the petitioner had accepted the receipts to be in the nature of revenue receipts. Thus, the Ruling cannot stand. Consequently, we set aside the Ruling dated 27.08.2012 and remit the matter to the Authority for Advance Rulings to examine the position, first of all, in the light of whether the receipts were in the nature of capital receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
