https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397533 The Court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking a stay on the payment of equalization levy under the Finance Act, 2016 as amended in 2020. The Court upheld respondent no.3's argument that the petitioner, with multiple permanent establishments in India, was liable to pay tax in India. The Court emphasized the binding effect of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) order and held respondent no.3 accountable for their statements, ultimately disposing of the petitioner's application. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Oct 2020 07:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397533 The Court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking a stay on the payment of equalization levy under the Finance Act, 2016 as amended in 2020. The Court upheld respondent no.3's argument that the petitioner, with multiple permanent establishments in India, was liable to pay tax in India. The Court emphasized the binding effect of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) order and held respondent no.3 accountable for their statements, ultimately disposing of the petitioner's application. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397533