Assessee – real estate developer was engaged in the business of construction of residential units / bungalows which were duplexes surrounded by a compound wall. Each residential unit consisted of a portico and an open terrace.
Assessee then filed an appeal before Tribunal. It was held that assessee had included net gain of ₹17.02 crore from foreign currency transactions and translations in its operating income, but DRP had rejected the claim.
Merely the fact that the liberty was given to the Appellant by the court and he failed to pursue the first appeal filed against the order dated 10.04.2023 did not mean that the Appellant could change the date of default at its convenience.
The Corporate Debtor never contested the debt or offered any kind of restructuring or settlement plan, according to the Financial Creditor. Since the purported date of default on October 1, 2021, no partial payments have been paid.
Assessee by bypassing the statutory mechanism, had misused the process of law as IBC, 2016 was a codified and time-bound legislation enacted to ensure the expeditious resolution or liquidation of corporate debtors, with specific timelines prescribed at each stage.
Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B could not be invoked to exclude the period of reference under the Indo-Swiss DTAA, if the reference itself was invalid. Thus, no request could be made by Department for information relating to period prior to 01.04.2011 in terms of the Indo-Swiss DTAA.
Department replied on 29 November 2018, and assessee kept following up for the refund with interest. But no further response came. Revenue rejected the refund, saying the 2018 reply was not a valid order under the Act.
AO held that assessee had made repayment of the loan to M/s. Tata Finance Corporation in that financial year to the extent of Rs. 6,71,939 in cash against the loan taken for commercial vehicle.
The company had sought a NIL tax deduction certificate under Section 195, arguing that the payments did not constitute royalty either under domestic tax law or the DTAA, and that Intelsat had no permanent establishment (PE) in India.
Since the assessments were completed in the case of assesee and there was no incriminating material found during the search in the case of the assessee, the additions made under Section 153A were unsustainable.
