Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1957 2014 SLD 1957 (2014) 365 ITR 293
Delhi High Court
W.P. (C) NO. 2774 OF 2014 C.M. NO. 5741 OF 2014, MAY 23, 2014
S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ
Parag P. Tripathi, Satyen Sethi, Kunal Bahri and Arta Trana Panda for the Petitioner. Balbir Singh for the
Respondent.

Emaar MGF Land Ltd.

v.

Tax Recovery Officer-2

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J. - The petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is aggrieved by an order under Section 226(3)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") of the Tax Recovery Officer, Hyderabad- the first respondent here ("TRO, Hyderabad"), against it, requiring it to pay Rs. 32,82,79,787/-, alleged to be due from the fourth respondent M/s Emaar Hills Township Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad ("EHTPL"), the assessee-in-default in this case. 2. EHTPL is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) constituted by agreement between Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. ("APIIC"), holding 74% and Emaar Properties, PJSC Dubai ("Emaar, Dubai"), holding 26%,for the purpose of establishing an integrated project comprising golf course, convention centre-cum-exhibition complex, residential and commercial complexes, hotels, etc. This was done pursuant to a collaboration agreement entered into between the two parties on 19 August 2003 in furtherance of an MoU between APIIC and Emaar-Dubai entered into in November 2002.The petitioner in this case, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. ("EMGF"), engaged in the business of construction/land development for industrial projects and residential townships, entered into a development agreement on 03-11-2006 with the fourth respondent, EHTPL, for the development 258.36 acres of land owned by EHTPL. Subsequently, on 25-07-2007, the earlier agreement of November 2006 was cancelled and a new development agreement-cum-GPA was entered into between EHTPL and EMGF, with an addendum dated 23-7-2008. EMGF was to receive consideration of 75% of the gross revenue derived from sale of buildings constructed on EHTPL's land and 25% was to remain EHTPL's share. The second respondent is the Tax Recovery Officer, Delhi ("TRO, Delhi"), having jurisdiction to recover the tax demand due from the petitioner; the third respondent is the administrative body in charge of the second respondent. 3. Three years after the execution of the July 2007 agreement, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, on the recommendation of APIIC, by a notification dated 08-10- 2010, prohibited the registration of documents in the integrated project being…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492