Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The petitioner prays for quashing the impugned orders dated 30.11.2015 and 20.2.2015, Annexures P.1 and P.2 passed by respondent No. 2 in re -computing the book profit for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Sec. 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") by increasing the book profit by making an addition of amount of Rs. 253.87 crores as depreciation in the profit and loss account.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner company - Cairn India Limited is a resident company incorporated under the Erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 on 21.8.2006. It is listed on Bombay and National Stock Exchange of India. It is engaged in the business of surveying, prospecting, drilling and exploring, acquiring, developing, producing, maintaining, refining, storing, trading/supplying, transporting, marketing, distributing, importing, exporting and generally dealing in minerals, oils, petroleum, gas and related byproducts and other activities incidental to the above. As part of its business activities, the petitioner company also holds interests in its subsidiary companies which have been granted rights to explore and develop oil exploration blocks in India. The petitioner company entered into production sharing contracts (PSCs) in respect of certain blocks/oil and gas fields. In the revised return filed by the petitioner company on 26.3.2013, it declared total income of Rs. 417,20,94,924/ - as per the provisions of the Act and adjusted book profit of Rs. 3505,76,69,697/ - under Sec. 115JB of the Act. The return was processed under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining Arm's length Price (ALP) under Sec. 92CA(3) of the Act in respect of international transactions undertaken by the petitioner during the assessment year in question. Vide order dated 22.1.2015, the TPO proposed adjustment of Rs. 171,44,78,562/ - under Sec. 92CA(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed various letters before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order dated 20.2.2015, Annexure P.2 in addition to accepting the adjustments made by the TPO also proposed an adjustment of Rs. 1,89,67,74,272/ - to total income computed under the provisions of the Act. Further, an amount of Rs. 2,69,22,99,920/ - was adjusted to book profits under Sec. 115JB of the Act. The petitioner is only challenging action of respondent No. 1 in proposing to increase book profit by Rs. 253,87,76,138/ - as a result of recomputation of book profit for the purpose of MAT under Sec. 115JB of the Act Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections to the legality of the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel I, New Delhi (DRP) i.e. respondent No. 2 on 20.3.2015. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.11.2015, Annexure P.1 under Sec. 144C(5) of the Act upheld the computation of book profit for the purpose of MAT made by the Assessing Officer under Sec. 115JB of the Act in the draft assessment order. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.;