Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging TPO Order on Share Issuance to Non-Resident AE - Capital Receipt Not Taxable Under Transfer Pricing Provisions. The court held that issuance of equity shares at premium to non-resident Associated Enterprises is a capital account transaction not giving rise to income, and thus outside the scope of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 258
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30 January 2013 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Draft Assessment Order dated 28 March 2012 passed by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2009-10. The core issue was whether the revenue had jurisdiction under Chapter X of the Act to tax amounts received on issuance of equity shares to its non-resident Associated Enterprises, which were capital account transactions not giving rise to income. The petitioner, through Senior Counsel Mr. P. J. Pardiwala, submitted that the issue was no longer res integra in view of the Bombay High Court's decision in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (Vodafone-IV). The petitioner had also filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on various issues including jurisdiction, but undertook to withdraw those objections, which was accepted by the court. The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. Girish Dave, accepted that the issue was in principle covered by Vodafone-IV but argued that there were distinguishing features in this case that warranted a different outcome. The court, after considering the rival submissions, reproduced the broad summary of findings in Vodafone-IV as culled out in W.P. No.583 of 2014 and held that the issue was squarely covered by that decision. The court found no distinguishing features that would justify not extending the benefit of Vodafone-IV to the petitioner. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 30 January 2013 and 28 March 2012 to the extent they sought to tax the share premium received by the petitioner on issuance of equity shares to its non-resident Associated Enterprises. The court directed that the petition be disposed of in terms of the decision in Vodafone-IV.

Headnote

A) Transfer Pricing - Capital Receipt - Jurisdiction to Tax - Chapter X of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Issue pertains to whether revenue can tax premium received on issuance of equity shares to non-resident Associated Enterprises under transfer pricing provisions - Court held that such capital account transactions do not give rise to income and are outside the scope of Chapter X, following the decision in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (Vodafone-IV) - Petition allowed (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the revenue has jurisdiction under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to tax amounts received on issuance of equity shares to non-resident Associated Enterprises, being capital account transactions not giving rise to income

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Impugned orders dated 30 January 2013 and 28 March 2012 quashed to the extent they seek to tax the share premium received by the petitioner on issuance of equity shares to its non-resident Associated Enterprises. Petition disposed of in terms of the decision in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India.

Law Points

  • Transfer pricing provisions under Chapter X of Income Tax Act
  • 1961 do not apply to capital account transactions
  • issuance of equity shares at premium is capital receipt not income
  • Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India ratio applies
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (11) 41

Writ Petition No.1205 of 2013

2014-11-18

M. S. Sanklecha, S.C. Gupte

Mr. P. J. Pardiwala, Mr. Mukesh Butani, Mr. Vishal Kalva, Mr. Rahul Yadav i/by M/s. M. P. Savla and Co. for Petitioner; Mr. Girish Dave for Respondent No.1; Mr. Tejveer Singh for Respondent No.3 and 4

M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax LTU and ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging TPO order and draft assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961

Remedy Sought

Quashing of TPO order dated 30 January 2013 and Draft Assessment Order dated 28 March 2012

Filing Reason

Revenue sought to tax share premium received on issuance of equity shares to non-resident Associated Enterprises under transfer pricing provisions

Previous Decisions

Petitioner had filed objections before DRP on various issues including jurisdiction; undertaking given to withdraw those objections

Issues

Whether the revenue has jurisdiction under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to tax amounts received on issuance of equity shares to non-resident Associated Enterprises, being capital account transactions not giving rise to income

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that the issue is covered by Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (Vodafone-IV) and capital account transactions are not taxable under Chapter X Revenue submitted that there are distinguishing features in this case that warrant not extending the benefit of Vodafone-IV

Ratio Decidendi

Transfer pricing provisions under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 do not apply to capital account transactions such as issuance of equity shares at premium, as they do not give rise to income. The decision in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (Vodafone-IV) squarely covers the issue.

Judgment Excerpts

the issue raised in this petition viz. the jurisdiction of the revenue to tax under Chapter X of the Act capital account transactions not giving rise to income is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 368 ITR Page-1. (Vodafone-IV).

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1205 of 2013 under Article 226 challenging TPO order dated 30 January 2013 and Draft Assessment Order dated 28 March 2012 for A.Y. 2009-10. Petitioner also filed objections before DRP on various issues including jurisdiction, but undertook to withdraw those objections. Court accepted undertaking and considered merits.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 92CA(3), Chapter X
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Monitors CBI Investigation into Illegal Construction and Tree Felling in Corbett Tiger Reserve — Environmental Degradation Case. The Court took suo moto cognizance of illegal construction and tree felling in Corbett Tiger Reserve and ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging TPO Order on Share Issuance to Non-Resident AE - Capital Receipt Not Taxable Under Transfer Pricing Provisions. The court held that issuance of equity shares at premium to non-resident Associated Enterpri...