9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal] 2. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 200 days. 4. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 194/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail via the instant appeal the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short "Tribunal"] dated 16.07.2021. 8. The issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the claim made by the respondent/assessee seeking exemption of income amounting to Rs. 70,05,71,000/- arising on account of transfer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a capital asset by a company to its subsidiary will not fall within the provisions of Section 45 of the Act i.e., be exigible to capital gains, if the following prerequisites stand fulfilled: (i) First, the parent company or its nominees hold the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company. (ii) Second, the subsidiary company is an Indian company. 11. In the instant case, the "Trunk Infrastructure", which includes roads etcetera, were, admittedly, transferred by the respondent/assessee to its 100% subsidiary Ansal API Infrastructure Ltd. [hereafter referred to as, "AAIL"]. 11.1 The transfer of "Trunk Infrastructure", concededly, led to generation of surplus amounting to Rs. 70,05,71,000/-. The record shows that the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , generated surplus, could not be treated as income, in view of the provisions of Section 47(iv) of the Act. 14. There is no dispute raised before us that the prerequisites provided in Section 47(iv) of the Act stand fulfilled i.e., the transfer of the Trunk Infrastructure/capital work-in-progress was made by the respondent/assessee to its 100% subsidiary and the subsidiary was an Indian company. 15. The other argument made by Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, is that the Tribunal could not have gone beyond the assessment order, given the fact that the respondent/assessee itself had included the surplus as income chargeable to tax in its return of income. 15.1 To our minds, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
