TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Grants Stay Petition for Rs. 184.37 Crores Tax Demand</h1> <h3>Tata Communications Limited Versus Dy. CIT-1 (3) (2), Mumbai</h3> Tata Communications Limited Versus Dy. CIT-1 (3) (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues: Stay petition by the Assessee for outstanding demand of Rs. 184.37 crores for A.Y. 2009-10 under Income Tax Act, 1961. Disputed income includes disallowance of claim u/s. 80-IA, long term capital loss, and transfer pricing adjustments.Analysis:1. Background Facts and Stay Application: The Assessee filed a Stay Petition seeking to stay the outstanding demand of Rs. 184.37 crores for A.Y. 2009-10. The disputed income includes disallowance of claim u/s. 80-IA, long term capital loss, and transfer pricing adjustments totaling Rs. 978.40 crores. The Assessee's counsel argued that similar issues existed for previous years, and stay had been granted by the tribunal for those years. Notably, a recent decision by the Bombay High Court rendered certain transfer pricing adjustments invalid, which was relevant to the current case as well. The Assessee had paid a significant portion of the demand for the current year and previous years.2. Arguments and Decision: The Departmental Representative acknowledged the Assessee's prima facie case but suggested a partial payment of Rs. 50 crores. The Assessee, on the other hand, highlighted the substantial tax liability already paid for previous assessments. The tribunal noted the Assessee's strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience in its favor. Despite a previous direction to pay Rs. 50 crores, the Assessee had paid only 46% of the outstanding demand. The tribunal found no merit in the Assessee's case regarding a specific issue and observed that the previous year's decision covered a significant portion of the disputed amount. Considering the favorable developments and the substantial funds locked up in disputed payments, the tribunal granted the stay without requiring further payment and instructed the Assessee not to seek adjournments without valid reasons.3. Final Decision: The tribunal allowed the Assessee's stay application without necessitating additional payment, considering the circumstances and the favorable legal developments. The decision was pronounced in an open court on March 04, 2016.
TaxTMI 