LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-93

M/S. TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. TELEWINGS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI AND ORS.

Decided On March 29, 2017
M/S. Telenor (India) Communications Private Limited (Earlier Known As M/S. Telewings Communications Services Private Limited Appellant
V/S
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), New Delhi And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance is that this court's order in W.P.(C) 1874/2017 (decided on 1st March, 2017) has not been given effect to. It contends that the Assessing officer (hereafter "AO", one of the respondents arrayed in these writ proceedings) whilst seemingly giving effect to the directions in that order, has deprived it of the previous relief given by him.

(2.) The petitioner had sought benefit of stay of recovery of demands for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, to the tune of Rs. 4,18,13,06,110.00 subject to its depositing Rs. 62,71,95,920.00. The petitioner had relied on instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes embodied in its office Memorandum (OM) dated 29.02016, to say that it was entitled to the facility of stay of demand in excess of 15% in the exceptions spelt out in Para 4B(b),which reads as under:-

(3.) In its writ petition, the petitioner had previously contended that the AO had not considered the top line credit adjustment which the petitioner was previously reflecting in its books towards substantial services rendered till the end of any financial year but for which the contractual and legal liability to render services in respect of the unutilized consideration subsisted. It was then argued that this amounted to a substantial sum of about Rs. 220 crores. It was further argued, besides, that the license fee adjustment on account of the telecom policy in the wake of the Supreme Court's judgment in 2G Spectrum's case, the amount set off i.e. Rs. 600 crores out of the unutilized license fee for the issuance of a new Spectrum License in terms of the policy. The revenue's treatment of that amount as 'capital' is contested. The petitioner also complained that the AO had not taken into account the refund standing to the credit of the petitioner to the tune of about Rs. 27 crores.