2018 (8) TMI 1263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the competent authorities under Mutual Agreement Procedure; to direct the respondent No.1 not to recover the disputed taxes mentioned in the order passed under Section 154 of the Act dated 08.03.2017 as per Annexure-D for the assessment year 2013-14 till disposal of appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); to direct the respondents not to take nay coercive steps for recovery of disputed taxes and further, to direct the respondents not withhold any refunds otherwise due to the petitioner for the impugned year or other years. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner engaged in the business of software development and maintenance services ("Information Technology/IT"), IT enabled services (ITeS) and I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....over the disputed demand and tax, has filed the present writ petition before this Court for the relief sought for. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri A. Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the recovery proceedings of income attributable to MAP are illegal and unsustainable in law and liable to be stayed. He further contended that without prejudice to his case disallowance of Rs. 281,69,31,406/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act requires deduction to be granted under section 10AA of the Act. It is further contended that payment made to Associate Enterprises are falling under Section 28 of the Act, consequent to the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not applica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Income Tax (Appeals). The CBDT has issued instruction No.1914, dated 02.02.1993, Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016. The first respondent disposed of the application by order dated 24.03.2017 and thereafter, the petitioner has preferred application before the second respondent and the second respondent considering the consent of the representative of the petitioner directed payment of Rs. 65 crores against Rs. 93.28 crores being 15% of the total demand of Rs. 595.25 Crores, which works out to 10.90% of the total current demand for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2013-14. The requirement of payment of 15% as contemplated in Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2017 issued by CBDT has been modified to 20% vide Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017. H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l tax payable by the petitioner was at Rs. 239,64,00,210/-. Subsequently the amount was modified and the tax payable by the petitioner was Rs. 1,72,16,77,880/-. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner being aggrieved by the said assessment order, filed an appeal before the Commissioner for Income Tax(Appeals). The said appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority. That does not mean that the petitioner cannot escape from the tax payable as per the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner Income Tax dated 08.03.2017 exercising powers under section 154 of Income Tax Act. 9. Therefore, without adverting to merits and demerits of the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it is suffice to direct the Appellate Autho....