TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot earlier offered to tax, like an excessive claim for depreciation, is now withdrawn and, as a result, income is offered to tax before the ITSC. This will satisfy the requirement of Section 245C (1) of that Act that what was not earlier disclosed before the AO is now offered to tax. Consequently, the Court sets aside the order dated 4th November, 2016 passed by the ITSC and restores the Petitioner’s application to the file of the ITSC. The said application will be taken as having been proceeded with by the ITSC in terms of Section 245D (1) of the Act. For the further stages in the application, it will be listed before the ITSC on 20th September, 2017. - W.P.(C) 11256/2016 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR PRATHIBA M. SINGH J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. The surrender was approved by the DOT on 13th February, 2015 and the Petitioner transferred the resources related to ILD/NLD business to Telenor India. The Petitioner thereby became non-operational and is, at present, not carrying on any business activity. It is stated that the Petitioner proposes to apply for liquidation in the near future. 4. For Assessment Year ( AY ) 2012-13, the Petitioner filed its return of income on 30th November, 2012 which was picked up for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Petitioner by the AO. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO ) who passed an order on 27th January, 2016 proposing a transfer pricing adjustment on account of Guarantee Fees. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in respect of which deduction was earlier claimed. Fourthly, the Petitioner offered the finance charges for obtaining the Bank Guarantee ( BG ) to tax, which was earlier claimed as deduction. It also stated in its SoF that the deduction of penalty imposed by the DOT, expenses on account of the prior period guarantee fee, etc. had earlier been inadvertently claimed in the returns. However, in respect of certain other issues like disallowance of roaming charges, amalgamated license fee and depreciation of finance costs, etc. the Assessee maintained the position taken in the original returns filed. 10. The ITSC was of the view that since what was being offered by the Petitioner to tax before it were the amounts which were earlier claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
