Case Law Details
Question No. 2 is whether even otherwise the transaction will stand outside section 45 of the Act in view of the section 47 (iv) of the Act. In the light of the Ruling on question No. 1, this question may have no efficacy. Counsel argued that an earlier Ruling rendered by this Authority In re RST (AAR No. 1067 of 2011) requires reconsideration.
He argued that the interpretation placed on section 47(iv) of the Act, therein is not in consonance with the legislative intent and section 47(iv) has to be read as conferring benefit in three situations, one, when the parent company holds the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary, two, when the nominees of the principal hold the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary and three, when the principal and the nominee together hold the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary. The wording in the provision is “the parent company or its nominee”. There appears to be no justification in reading ‘or’ as ‘and’ to hold that when a principal and its nominee hold the whole of the share capital, that case will also come within the ambit of the provision. If there is any lacuna in the provision, it is for the legislature to deal with that situation, assuming that there is a lacuna as contended by Counsel for the applicant. In interpreting a taxing statute, it is not for the Court to supply an omission, even if there be one. To borrow the language of Rowlatt J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [(1921) 1 KB 64]. “In a taxing statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment.” Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be omitted.
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX), NEW DELHI
Armstrong World Industries Mauritius Multiconsult Ltd., In re
JUSTICE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, CHAIRMAN
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
