2024 (9) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns to believe that income had escaped assessment is entirely without basis and is rejected as such. Thus, reassessment proceedings set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv and Mr. Aditya Vohra, Adv For the Respondent: Mr. Aseem Chawla, Sr.SC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Naveen Rohila and Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv ORDER 1. We have heard Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition and Mr. Chawla, learned counsel who represents the respondent. 2. The facts which form subject matter of the instant challenge were succinctly noticed in our order of 14 July 2023 and whi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. 6. Mr Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the impugned order is flawed for several reasons, including the following: (i) Investment in equity shares can never lead to escapement of income, unless the AO had relevant material/information before him to disclose that it was a case of round-tripping. (ii) The AO has not given weight to two vital documents filed by the petitioner i.e., Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate, and the communication received from the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. 7. According to us, the matter requires further examination. 8. Issue notice. 8.1 Mr Aseem Chawla, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eproduced 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 Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) holding such investment in shares to be a 'capital account transaction' not giving rise to income was accepted by the CBDT. Para 2 of Instruction No.2 of 2015 dated 29th January, 2015 reads thus: "2. It is here by informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X