M/S. FCI OEN CONNECTORS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/26925/2012

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. FCI OEN Connectors Ltd., represented by its director, Mr. Rajamani, who filed a Writ Petition against the Union of India and other income tax authorities concerning a dispute over transfer pricing adjustments and subsequent recovery orders. The petitioner challenged a conditional order passed in the first appeal, which stayed further recovery on payment of 50% of the demanded amounts. An interim order by the High Court directed the payment of Rs. 50,00,000, which the petitioner complied with, leading to the closure of the Writ Petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722411 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Writ Petition (C) No. 19683 of 2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: M NAMBIAR; P GOPINATH; P THOMAS; K MATHAI
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Stay of recovery; Transfer pricing; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 144C; 92CA(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/3RD BHADRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 26925 of 2012 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------ M/S. FCI OEN CONNECTORS LTD., XXIX/2089, TRIPUNITHURA ROAD, THYKOODAM, KOCHI 682019, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. RAJAMANI. BY ADVS.SRI.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI RESPONDENTS : ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110004. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN, SRVHS ROAD, KOCHI-682011. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IS PRESS ROAD, C R BUILDING, KOCHI 682018. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26925 of 2012 (M) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 31-10-2010 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCORM TAX (TP-1 & INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 17-02-2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3- COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20-03-2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 6-8-2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-08-2012 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 19683 OF 2012. EXHIBIT P5(a)- COPY OF THE CHELAN NO. 280 DATED 30-06-2012 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 50,00,000/- OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-10-2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // True Copy // P.A. To Judge DSV/05/09 K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C) No. 26925 of 2012 - M ====================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2014 J U D G M E N T The above Writ Petition has been filed against Ext.P6, conditional order passed in first appeal. While the first appellate authority granted stay of further recovery on payment of 50% of the amounts demanded, this Court by an interim order dated 15.11.2012, directed payment of Rs.50,00,000/- and stayed the recovery proceedings. The submission of the petitioner; in the presence of the learned Standing Counsel is that, the amounts as directed by the interim order was paid and the same was recorded by this Court on 05.12.2012. 2. In such circumstance, there is admittedly no reason why the Writ Petition should be kept pending. The recovery would depend upon the final orders passed in the first appeal, the interim order in which, was the subject matter of the above Writ Petition. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is closed. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB "