Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Suzlon Energy Ltd.....Opponent(S) on 21 June, 2016
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, A.J. Shastri
O/TAXAP/400/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 400 of 2016
==========================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s)
Versus
SUZLON ENERGY LTD.....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant.
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 21/06/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) We are informed that similar questions are admitted by this Court in Tax Appeal No.1023 of 2014. The Tax Appeal is therefore admitted for consideration of following substantial questions of law:
(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee company was not liable to deduct tax at source under section196C read with section 115AC on the interest Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Jun 23 02:31:51 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/400/2016 ORDER payable on FCCBs to the non-resident bond holders by holding that the interest payment by the assessee to non-resident investors cannot be said to have accrued or arisen in India and it also cannot be said that this interest income can be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India ?
(B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in not holding that the facts of this case were similar to the case of Performing Rights Society vs. CIT (106 ITR (SC), while relying upon the case of M/s. Adani Enterprises ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically held that the income in that case was in fact accrued in India and no question arose whether it should be deemed to accrue or arise in India ?"
© Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in travelling to section 9 which deals with the deming clause in spite of the fact as per the provisions of section 5(2) as interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Performing Rights Society Case (supra) the income clearly accrued/arose in India and hence there was no ground for invoking the provisions of section 9 in this case ?
(D) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that interest paid by the assessee company to non-resident investors is specifically excluded from the deeming provision as per section 9(1)(v)(b) inspite of the fact that in the present case Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Jun 23 02:31:51 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/400/2016 ORDER the funds raised through FCCBs have not been used for the purpose of business or profession carried out on by the appellant company outside India ?"
2. To be heard with Tax Appeal No. 1023 of 2014.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (A.J. SHASTRI, J.) VC DARJI Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu Jun 23 02:31:51 IST 2016