Delhi ITAT deletes Rs.
1558.57 cr. capital gains addition on Telenor India for AY 2014-15, holds that
set off of non-refundable entry fee paid by group co. (UW) to DoT in 2008,
against the fresh spectrum fee payable by assessee towards allocation of
telecom licenses cannot be regarded as 'transfer' u/s 2(47); Assessee and
Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd (UW) are both part of the Norwegian based
Telenor group, assessee had acquired fresh telecom licenses for a spectrum fee
of Rs. 4018 cr. in November, 2012, and had requested DoT to consider the set
off of entry fee of Rs 1658.57 cr. already paid by UW in 2008 for grant of 22
unified access service licenses (‘UASL’), which were then quashed by SC;
Subsequently in December 2012, assessee acquired UW’s business on going concern
basis and entered into business transfer agreement (BTA) and Actionable Claim
Agreement whereby UW transferred all the rights, claims, other rights against
the DoT including the payment of license fee for consideration of Rs. 100 cr.;
Rejects Revenue’s stand that the right acquired by assessee under the
actionable claim agreement constituted a ‘capital asset’ u/s. 2(14) and that
the said right was exercised by assessee in March, 2014, being the date on
which the set off was allowed by DoT; Further rejects Revenue’s stand that
consequent to the set off, capital asset acquired by assessee was extinguished
and thus there was a ‘transfer’ u/s. 2(47) of a short term capital asset (being
held for a period less than 36 months); ITAT holds that 'right' which is not
enforceable by law, cannot be regarded as a 'capital asset', thus holds that
assessee had not acquired any capital asset from UW under the Actionable Claim
agreement since UW did not hold such asset at any point of time.:ITAT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CBDT issues second round of frequently asked questions in relation to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024
This Tax Alert summarizes Circular No. 19/2024 dated 16 December 2024 (VSV 2- December Circular) issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax...
-
PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court) S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp autho...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on availability of CENVAT Credit on mobile towers and pre-fabrica...
-
IFRS and US GAAP - Similarities and Differences What is IFRS? And what is GAAP? The main difference between IFRS and US GAAP is that G...
-
Madras HC reverses ITAT's order, grants deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) to assessee (a society engaged in the business of banking and provi...
-
SC dismisses assessee-company’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order upholding re-assessment initiation (beyond 4 yrs period) based on a special...
-
SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order in case of assessee (belonging to Lodha group of companies engaged in real estate bu...
-
Claiming a foreign tax credit (FTC) in Australia allows companies to offset foreign taxes paid on income earned overseas against their Aust...
-
HC allows HDFC Bank’s writ petition, quashes AO’s order and subsequent reference to TPO alleging that certain related party transactions [p...
-
Delhi ITAT deletes Rs. 1558.57 cr. capital gains addition on Telenor India for AY 2014-15, holds that set off of non-refundable entry fee p...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Bombay High Court (HC)1 on admissibility of input tax credit (ITC) w.r.t GST on advance p...
No comments:
Post a Comment