Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 722 - HC - Income TaxApplication for Advance Ruling declined - application seeking an Advance Ruling is in respect of a transaction designed prima facie for tax avoidance in terms of Section 245 -R (2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as revenue's stand that two Indian residents namely one Mr. Dhruv Khaitan and Mr. Piyush Khaitan (Indian residents) are the ultimate beneficiaries of the sale of the shares by the Petitioner - Petitioner is a Company incorporated in Mauritius - Held that:- The facts and submissions of law put-forth by the Petitioner to meet the objections of the Revenue have not at all been considered. Similarly, so far as prima facie case is concerned, the impugned order besides adverting to the legal position has not given any reason as to why in the present facts, the entire issue/ transaction had been designed prima facie for the purposes of avoiding income tax. The facts arising in this case for consideration have to be examined in the light of the prevailing law. The issue raised are fairly contentious. However, the impugned order after setting out the law in respect of what is exactly meant by words 'control and management' and the understanding of the word 'prima facie' concluded by holding that the factual scenario projected by the Revenue clearly establishes that the transaction in question was designed prima facie for avoidance of income tax. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the application, which is accordingly, rejected. We find that the impugned order has after recording the submission of the Petitioner and the Revenue concluded that the view canvassed by the Revenue establishes a prima facie design to avoid tax. The impugned order gives no reasons which would indicate why the Petitioner's contention is not acceptable. We do appreciate that very detailed reasons need not be given for a prima facie view but some consideration must be evident from the order. This reasoning is absent in the impugned order. Thus he impugned order suffers from the vice of being an order without reasons. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Authority shall consider de novo the application of the Petitioner dated 3rd January, 2011. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|