9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Tokyo, 100-8086, Japan. 2. The applicant established a Branch Office in India in April, 2008 after obtaining the necessary approvals from the Reserve Bank of India. The activities carried out by the Branch Office in India primarily relate to provision of support services to the applicant. 3. The applicant received off-shore supplies contract from Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. and entered into two separate contracts with the Power Grid Corporation India Ltd., i.e. (i) Offshore supply contract and (ii) Onshore service contract. 4. The applicant seeks ruling from the Authority for Advance Rulings on the following questions:- Que.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the amounts received/receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of income was filed before filing the application. Relying on the decision by the AAR in the case of SEPCO III Electric Power Corporation (AAR No.1009 of 2010) dated 25.8.2011 and the decision in the case of NetApp B.V (AAR No.955 of 2010) dated 2.2.2005 that was confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in (W.P.(C) 3959/2012 dated 14.8.2012), Revenue submitted that when the return of income is filed it should be treated as pending before the Income-tax Authority. In this case the return of income was filed on 30.11.2011 and the application was filed on 4.4.2012 before the Authority and therefore the matter is already pending before the Income-tax Authority before filing the application and the application is barred by proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only in those cases where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any claim of losses, exemption, deduction, allowances or relief made in the return is inadmissible or if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not under-stated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, he can serve notice under section 143(2). Before or without issuing notice under section 143(2) or notice under section 142(1) in cases whether return is not filed, there is no jurisdiction to examine or adjudicate debatable issue claimed or shown in the return of income. 8. The decision in the cases of SEPCO III Electric Power Construction Corporation (supra) and NetApp BV (supra) are b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of return does not attract bar on the admission of the application as provided in section 245R(2) of the Act. We are of the view that only when the issues are shown in the return and notice under section 143(2) is issued, the question raised in the application will be considered as pending for adjudication before the Income-tax Authorities. In the present case the application was filed on 4.4.2012. Return of income was filed on 30.11.2011 i.e. before filing the application. However, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 8.8.2012 i.e. after the date of the application. Following which ruling in Hyosung Corporation (supra) we hold that the question raised by the applicant in the present case is not already pending before the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
