TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the fact that the petitioner has paid by way of additional tax an amount equivalent to Rs. 1,41,44,457/-. Given this position, the Commission in its new avatar i.e., Interim Board, would have to examine whether the petitioner meets the threshold criteria prescribed u/s 245C(1)(ia)(B)(ii) of the Act. Ground which persuaded the Commission not to entertain the petitioner s application that it was not vested with powers concerning the TP issues does not survive any longer as the petitioner on its own showing has accepted the upward adjustment made by the TPO - we are of the opinion that the matter requires re-examination by the Commission [now, the Interim Board]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chopra submitted that the petitioner had deposited by way of an additional tax, Rs. 1,41,44,457/- and also offered to withdraw excessive deductions, which were claimed as Return of Income (ROI) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 to 2016-17. 4.1 In support of his plea that the application filed before the Commission was viable, Mr Chopra drew our attention to the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by a coordinate bench of this court in W.P.(C) 11256/2016. 4.2 Furthermore, Mr Chopra submitted that the petitioner had closed down its business, contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the Commission. 4.3 According to Mr Chopra, the Commission failed to take into account, inter alia, the following documents filed in this behalf by the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial placed on record, which was ignored, ought to have been examined and it could be examined by the Commission if the matter was remanded by the Court. 10. On the other hand, Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, says that the assessment proceedings could continue and the submissions made by the petitioner could be examined by the Assessing Officer (AO). 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. What has come through clearly is the fact that the Commission refused to entertain the application on the two grounds referred to hereinabove. 12.1 Insofar as these two grounds are concerned, the observations made by the Commission may have to be re-exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Communications Pvt. Ltd. since FY 2014-15 and that since then, it has not engaged in any business activity requires to be examined. 13.1 The reason for the same is simple, which is that if the business activity had stopped, then certainly the petitioner cannot possibly carry forward cumulative losses and depreciation coupled with the fact that the petitioner has paid by way of additional tax an amount equivalent to Rs. 1,41,44,457/-. 14. Given this position, the Commission in its new avatar i.e., Interim Board, would have to examine whether the petitioner meets the threshold criteria prescribed under Section 245C(1)(ia)(B)(ii) of the Act. 15. The other ground which persuaded the Commission not to entertain the petitioner s applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
