Gujarat High Court
Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 March, 2018
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
C/TAXAP/52/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL No. 52 of 2018
==============================================================
VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY 3 GLOBAL SERVICES PVT.
LTD., 3GSPL)
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
==============================================================
Appearance :
Mr SN SOPARKAR, Sr Advocate with Ms. FERESHTE SETHNA, Mr MRUNAL PAREKH,
Mr. ADHIRAJ MALHOTRA & Mr. B S SOPARKAR, Advocates for the PETITIONER
Mr KAMAL TRIVEDI, Advocate General with Mr. MANISH BHATT, Sr Advocate for
Mr. VARUN K.PATEL, Advocate for the RESPONDENT
==============================================================
CORAM:Â HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
21st March 2018
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial questions of law :
[1] "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to arrive at findings on a basis not set forth within the draft order of assessment, order of the Transfer Pricing Officer or order of the Dispute Resolution Panel or the final order of assessment ?"
[2] "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in Page 1 of 3 C/TAXAP/52/2018 ORDER holding that the transaction in question was an international transaction and thereby provisions of Chapter X of the Income-tax Act,1961 would get attracted ?"
[3] "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transaction was exigible to capital gains tax ?"
[4] "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transaction of Piramal Healthcare Limited and ETHL Communications Holdings Limited was a comparable transaction ?"
[5] "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dispute raised by the Appellant as to cashless option transaction not being a comparable transaction was wholly academic and does not require any adjudication ?"
[6] "Whether the Tribunal has misread and mis-characterized agreements entered into by the appellant, and thereby erred in concluding that 3.15% equity stake of Page 2 of 3 C/TAXAP/52/2018 ORDER SMMS Investments Private Limited held in Vodafone India Limited, through Telecom Investments India Private Limited via SMMS Investments Private Limited/Omega Telecom Holdings Private Limited, rather than a 2.52% equity sake in Vodafone India Limited held by CGP Investments Limited [Mauritius] was liable to be taken into consideration ?"
[Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.] Prakash Page 3 of 3