Case Law Details
The very purpose of entering into agreements between the two foreigners is to acquire the controlling interest which one foreign company held in the Indian company, by other foreign company. This being the dominant purpose of the transaction, the transaction would certainly be subject to municipal laws of India, including the Indian Income Tax Act.
Shares in themselves may be an asset but in some cases like the present one, shares may be merely a mode or a vehicle to transfer some other asset(s). In the instant case, the subject matter of transfer as contracted between the parties is not actually the shares of a Cayman Island Company, but the assets (as stated supra) situated in India. The choice of the Petitioner in selecting a particular mode of transfer of these right enumerated above will not alter or determine the nature or character of the asset.(Para 161)
A perusal of the show cause notice, the chronological list of dates and events, clearly reveals that the present case involves investigation into voluminous facts and perusal of numerous lengthy and complicated agreements. Based on the above, the question of chargeability of the transaction to tax and also the question of duty to deduct tax at source, can be determined. Based on the above, the question of chargeability of the transaction to tax and also the question of duty to deduct tax at source, can be determined. In the present case, the show cause notice, cannot be termed extraneous or irrelevant or erroneous on its face or not based on any material at all. (Para 182)
The present Petition totally lacks particulars as to the nature of agreement dated 11th February, 2007 and all other agreements preceding or following the same entered into by HTIL and/or the Petitioner. The essential facts supported by the necessary documents as proof of such facts, have been conveniently kept away from this Court. (Para 180)
The Petitioner has been requested to only show cause as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default. The Petitioner was requested to produce certain documents for proper adjudication in the matter. One of the crucial documents required by the second Respondent was the primary agreement entered upon between the Petitioner and HTIL. The said agreement has not been produced by the Petitioner either before second Respondent or even before us. Without the said agreement and other relevant documents, it will be impossible for us to find out the true nature of the transaction. Inspite of repeated demands by the Respondents, the same have not been produced, leaves us with no option but to draw an adverse inference against the Petitioner, since it clearly amounts to withholding of the best evidence, even assuming that the onus of proof does not lie on the Petitioner. (Para 177)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
