Income Tax

Google India gets relief in deposit against income tax demand from High Court.

Google India gets relief in deposit against income tax demand from High Court. The High Court reduced the deposit to 30% against the outstanding tax demand from 50% as directed by the ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2020 (2017) (08) HC

Brief Facts of the Case:

The petitioner-company M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd. was aggrieved by the stay order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directing the Internet Search Giant to deposit 50% of the impugned tax demand and out of such 50% of the tax demand, 20% was directed to be deposited within seven days and balance amount was to be paid within 180 days in six equal installments.

In view of the pendency of the cases, the Hon’ble High Court did not incline to go into the merit of the case and opined that they deserve to be heard by the Tribunal itself. However the ITAT was requested to decide the pending appeals expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.

The Counsel for the petitioner-company referred to paragraph of the impugned order of the ITAT towards the suggestion of the ITAT that the Tribunal could stay the demand, subject to the condition of payment of 30% of the total tax demand, which, however was not accepted by the petitioner-company.

It was submitted that the company should be allowed to abide by the suggestion of the ITAT as stated in the impugned order and the petitioner company would be willing to deposit 30% of the total tax demand as indicated by the ITAT itself and the remaining 10% of the said demand may be directed to be deposited within a period of one month, since 20% of the total demand which was required to be deposited within seven days of the order passed by the ITAT stood deposited by the petitioner-company.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the said prayer was found to be in tune with the suggestion of the Bench of ITAT itself in its order. The Hon’ble High Court stated that even though, it was not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid interlocutory interim order passed by the ITAT but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said submission could be accepted even at this stage, coupled with the request made to the Tribunal to decide the present appeal as well as the connected appeals expeditiously.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court made a slight modification of the direction given by the Tribunal that instead of 50% of the total tax demand, the petitioner-company may deposit 30% of the said total tax demand disputed before the learned Tribunal and if the petitioner company has already deposited 20% of the tax demand in view of the direction of the Tribunal, remaining 10% of the same to be deposited by the petitioner-company within the period of one month.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Empanelment

FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms

Invitation For Empanelment Of Practising Chartered Accountants / Chartered Accountant Firms Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM Limited), Nagpur,…

2 days ago
  • Empanelment

PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work

Press Registrar General of India (PGRI) invites application for empanelment of Chartered Accountants. The Press Registrar General of India manages…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner

CBDT notifies revised Form No. 169 for making application for registration as a valuer under section 514 and authorised income…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC

Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from statutorily available 30 days to 15 days seriously prejudiced assessee’s…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated

At the stage of registration u/s 12AB, the CIT(E) not empowered to adjudicate applicability of provisio to section 2(15) of…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Flower bed area not included in “built up area” to calculate eligible limit u/s 80IB(10)

Flower bed area could not be included in the definition of “built up area” to calculate eligible limit of 1000…

5 days ago