TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present application - "Transaction" or "proposed transaction" are not the same as mere intention. The applicant intends to invest in a 100 per cent subsidiary company in India which in turn intends to set up a consortium by way of partnership firm with the Indian company and the partnership firm propose to acquire the undertaking of the Indian company which is stated to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - the 100 per cent subsidiary company has to exist in reality and the partnership firm has to be set up in order to make transaction or proposed transaction of the applicant with the Indian company/subsidiary - The question relates to proposed setting up of the subsidiary and the partnership firm with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, a Corporation (MSRDC) owned by the Government of Maharashtra ('Undertaking'). The said undertaking comprises of various bridges constructed within Mumbai and the last bridge was completed on 30th September, 2006. (5) The operating of toll roads referred to above was started by MSRDC from dates prior to awarding contract for operating and maintenance to MEPPL by the state Government of Maharashtra. MEPPL has been awarded the said contract with effect from 19th November, 2010 for a period of 16 years. (6) The present Undertaking is eligible for tax deduction of 100% of its profits and gains from such undertaking for a period of 10 consecutive assessment years out of the 20 assessment years as per provisions of Section 80IA( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idge, i.e., the year 2006-07. (iv) Without prejudice, if the date of commencement of operation of the bridges by the State Government is to be considered for the purposes of determining the period of 20 years in terms of section 801A(2) of the Act, since there are in all 20 bridges (toll of which is collected at 5 entry points) which form part of the Undertaking under contract granted to MEPPL and each of them was completed at a different date between 1999 to 2006 and operations and maintenance of each of them was started originally by the state government at a different date, will the year of completion of last bridge be treated as the year in which the undertaking develops and begins to operate any infrastructure facility or 20 bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as an "intangible asset" u/s32(1)(ii) for the purpose of claiming depreciation under the Income-tax Act. 1961. 3. The Revenue objected to admission of the application u/s 245R(2) stating that the questions posed before the AAR do not fall under any of the clauses of section 254N of the Act. It was submitted that the applicant is in no way involved in the present set of transactions as described in the statement of facts and agreements filed before the AAR. The companies involved in the transaction are Indian companies and any tax liability out of such transaction will arise on Indian companies or the proposed partnership firm which is also Indian. Neither the non-resident applicant has entered into any arrangement/agreement with the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... har Trade Circle Enterprises LLC". It was stated that the correct name of the applicant is Trade Circle Enterprises LLC which is a company. 6. On perusal of the questions we find that there is no mention of the applicant's name except in question No.1 that states : " Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the transfer of Undertaking from MEP Infra Toll Road Private Limited ('MEPPL') to the partnership firm in which the Applicant is considering to join as a partner through its Indian subsidiary, would in any manner, affect the allowability of deduction under section 801A(4)(i) to the partnership firm." 7. There is no transaction or proposed transaction with the Indian companies mentioned in the question. At the time of he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity and the partnership firm has to be set up in order to make transaction or proposed transaction of the applicant with the Indian company/subsidiary. The question relates to proposed setting up of the subsidiary and the partnership firm with the Indian company and as to whether the subsidiary or the partnership firm will be eligible to 100 per cent deduction u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act. The ruling of this Authority in the case of Umicore Finance v. CIT (318 ITR 78) is also not applicable in the present application. On facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the stand of Revenue that the questions posed before us do not fall under the purview of this Authority. The application is not admitted and consequently rejected as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
