8 The stand of the Revenue is rather curious. On the one hand it is not disputed by the Revenue that the decision of Vodafone IV would cover the issues arising in the present Petition. It therefore, follows that in the present case also the impugned orders passed are not sustainable in law as they are completely without jurisdiction as held in Vodafine-IV . The submission made by Mr Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel on behalf of the Revenue – Respondents, taken at the highest, would be that the petitioner has not filed its declaration in respect of issue of shares in Form 3CEB. This was also a stand taken by the revenue in Writ Petition No. 1205/2013 filed by the Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd ., wherein by order dated 18 March 2014, we have held that the same would not make any difference to determine, whether or not the income arises for the purpose of being charged to tax, when the transaction is admittedly on capital account not covered by Section 45 of the Act. Alternatively, if the declaration as filed by the Petitioner is considered to be adequate then the decision in Vodafone IV would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It may be pointed out in Vodafone IV the Petitioner had filed a declaration in Form 3CEB and the revenue had contended that having submitted to the jurisdiction of Chapter X of the Act, it was not open to the Petitioner therein to now contend that Chapter X of the Act was not applicable. Be that as it may, in case a declaration made by the Assessee is inadequate, nothing stops the Revenue from calling for the same and in any case, non filing of the declaration would have consequences which would follow. The above fault/mistake on the part of the petitioner will not convert non-income into income. In view of the above, the submission made by
