9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grawala and Mr. Karan Luthra, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1. Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for Respondent No. 2. ORDER CM Nos.3142-43/2017 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed off. W.P.(C) 686/2017 3. Issue notice. Mr.Asheesh Jain, Advocate accepts notice for respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evy - by virtue of Section 115QA (1) and (2) of the Act is confined to, what is defined as 'buy-back' under Explanation (i) to Section 115QA (1). Elaborating on this, it is argued that non obstante clause, which changed the definition as well as the charging provision under Section 115QA, confines the levy only to transactions that are covered by it. The solitary nature of the transactions covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 434 of 2014, decided by the Bombay High Court on 28.04.2015). 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue, appearing on advance notice, has opposed the petition on the ground of the interim relief arguing that an alternative remedy under Section 250 is available. It is submitted that though the levy, is a special one, forms part of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the AO's order is appealable. It is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cover all manners of share acquisition by the Company of its own shares, is evident from a subsequent amendment to Section 115QA of the Act, when it explained the meaning of 'buy-back' in the First Explanation by not alluding merely to Section 77A of the Companies Act but all other provisions of law. That this provision was not given retrospective effect, in this Court's opinion, further strength ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
