9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be open to it to take proceedings in accordance with law. The challenge to the vires to Explanation 1 to Section 148 of the Act is left open. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntoni Test Technologies SRL Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1) & Ors. being W.P.(C) 15928/2023 are mentioned, namely, that the petitioner is a foreign company and is a resident of Italy. Learned counsel for petitioner states that during FY 2018-19, the petitioner had subscribed to 15,00,000 shares at face value of Rs. 10 each by making foreign inward remittance of Rs. 1,50,00,000 in its wholly owned Indian subsidiary namely, Angelantoni Test Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with applicable regulations. He further states that since the Petitioner had not earned any income from any source in India, the Petitioner did not file return of income in India. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or annexed with the impugned orders and notices. 6. It is settled law that investment in shares in an Indian subsidiary cannot be treated as 'income' as the same is in the nature of "capital account transaction" not giving rise to any income. In Nestle SA Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (W.P.(C) No. 12643/2018), this Court held that the allegation of the Revenue that the investment in the shares of Indian subsidiary amounted to 'income' is flawed. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinunder: "24. The principal objection of the Petitioner that its investment in the shares of its subsidiary cannot be treated as 'income' is well founded. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess Information Bureau, Government of India. The relevant portion of the said press note is reproduced hereinbelow: "Acceptance of the Order of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Vodafone India Services Private Limited The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, in a major decision, has decided to accept the order of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Vodafone India Services Private Limited (VISPL) dated 10.10.2014. This is a major correction of a tax matter which has adversely affected investor sentiment. Based on the opinion of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Chairperson (CBDT) and the Attorney General of India, the Cabinet decided to: i. accept the order of the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome arises in case of an International transaction between AEs. It does not warrant re-computation of a consideration received / given on capital account." 9. Further, this Court in Divya Capital One Private Limited (Earlier Known as Divya Portfolio Private Limited) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1) Delhi & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1461 held that 'Whether it is "information to suggest" under amended law or "reason to believe" under erstwhile law the benchmark of "escapement of income chargeable of tax" still remains the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking powers under Section 147 of the Act'. 10. Consequently, the impugned orders under Section 148A (d) of the Act and the notices passed under Section 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
