9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Settlement Commission, ('ITSC'), Additional Bench - II, New Delhi under Section 245D (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') declining to proceed on the Petitioner's application under Section 245C (1) of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner is a step-down subsidiary company of the Norway based Telenor Group. Pursuant to a Business Transfer Agreement ('BTA') entered into with Telewings Communication Services Pvt. Ltd. [now known as Telenor (India) Communications Pvt. Ltd. ('Telenor India')] on 6th December, 2012, the business of the Petitioner [GSM as well as national and international long distance services ('ILD/NLD business')] was transferred to Telenor India as a going concern on a 'Slump Sale' basis on the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Act for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17. On 31st October, 2016, notice was issued by the ITSC on said application. 7. It is stated that, thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the ITSC, holding that the Petitioner had failed to fulfil the requirement of Section 245C relating to making a full and true disclosure of its income "which has not been disclosed" before the AO. 8. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 9. A perusal of the impugned order of the ITSC reveals that in the Statement of Facts (SoF) filed before the ITSC, the Petitioner had offered to give up its claim for depreciation on Assets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his, by no means, requires to the applicant to demonstrate that there is a fresh source of income which was not earlier disclosed by the Assessee. It can happen that an income which was not earlier offered to tax, like an excessive claim for depreciation, is now withdrawn and, as a result, income is offered to tax before the ITSC. This will satisfy the requirement of Section 245C (1) of that Act that what was not earlier disclosed before the AO is now offered to tax. This view of the Court finds support from the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Income Tax Settlement Commission [2014] 365 ITR 108 (Bom) and of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Vysya Bank Limited [2012] 344 ITR 658 (Kar) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
