9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax, Chennai [ 2023 (5) TMI 224 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] have dismissed the Writ Petition as held that assessing authority has rightly concluded that there is no capital gains that arises from the transaction since the entire transaction was a buyout of shares by virtue of order of the Apex Court. The officer, in this regard refers to the statement of the Apex Court that the transaction 'does not amount to shares being transferred inter vivos, nor can the payment for the shares be treated as deemed dividend'. Thus the clear inference that the officer has arrived at, is that there can be no instance of capital gain tax nor any levy under Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act dealing with deemed As pointed out that the receipt itself has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, the same order is taken to be passed in these matters as well.These Writ Petitions are dismissed. - THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH For the Petitioner : Mr. Veerabadran for R. Sivaraman For the Respondent : Mr. R.S. Balaji Senior Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER Mr. R.S. Balaji, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with necessary instructions to enable final disposal of these matters, even at the stage of admission. 2. I have had occasion to consider an identical challenge in W.P. No. 12918 of 2023 and by order dated 26.04.2023 have dismissed the Writ Petition in the following terms: The petitioner has challenged two notices under Section 148A(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 dated 01.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 2024 and advance tax has been paid in the relevant financial year. 6. In the interests of completion, the order of the Apex Court dated 17.05.2018 is extracted below:- By our order dated 10.05.2018, having heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side, this Court directed that a sum of Rs. 100 Crores be paid to the Respondents for the purchase of all the respondent s shares in the Company. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel wished to examine on that date in how much time this payment can be made. Today, we are told that Mr. P. Chidambaram s client s own offer in this Court was for land and not for money. We reiterate that we were told this on the last occasion, after which we passed the order dated 10.05.2018. As a result, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has sought exemption in respect of the entirety of the amount of Rs. 18,62,03,348/- received by it and has not offered the interest thereupon to tax. 8. The assessing authority has in the annexure to the notice stated as follows:- Following information has been disseminated as High Risk CRIU/VRU case pertaining to AY 2019- 20 on Insight Portal selected under Risk Management Strategy (RMS) cycle 2 formulated by the CBDT: The Hon'ble Supreme Cout of India vide order dated 17.05.2018 had approved a buy-out of shares held by following entities in M/s.SV Global Mills Limited: 1. M/s. Satluj Credit and Holdings Pvt Ltd 2. M/s. Calcom Credit and Holdings Pvt Ltd (840000 shares) 3. M/s. Rajat Chakra Credit and Holdings Pvt Ltd (840000 share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100 crores, assessee company and others have got the benefit of acquiring the title of the land worth Rs. 36 crores (Book value) from the Government of Puducherry as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Madras, vide order dated 18.03.2021. 9. His line of thinking is thus clear, to the effect that while the assessee has sought exemption in respect of the amount of Rs. 18.62 crores (approx), the assessing authority was of the view that the Apex Court had never indicated anywhere that the receipt should be treated as exempt under the Income-Tax Act. Furthermore, he has also expressed the view that the interest thereupon is liable to tax in AY 2019- 20. 10. The argument of the petitioner revolves around the interpretation of Section 56(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.62 Crores, it is a timing difference, and the officer prima facie believes that the interest must be taxed in AY 2019-20 relatable to the year when the order was passed by the Apex Court on the ground of accrual. Though the petitioner would suggest that the receipt had been delayed and it only after a few years that the amounts had been received, such submission involves the appreciation of facts and are best considered by the authorities. 14. The argument of petitioner to the effect that the taxability of the receipt has not been put to it in the showcause notice is also devoid of merit, since the assessing authority has raised these issues specifically in the penultimate paragraph of the Annexure to notice under Section 148A(b). A notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
