Case Law Details
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional CIT National E-Assessment Centre (ITAT Delhi)
From the report of the Assessing Officer as well as the clarification given by the ld. counsel it is seen that there are a huge refunds which are due to the assessee and as per the report of the Assessing Officer, substantial refund has been adjusted against the demand for Assessment Year 2010-11 for which already favourable order has been passed by this Tribunal order dated 4th October, 2019, even when there was a stay on collection of tax during the pendency of the appeal. Looking to the entirety of the facts that, once a huge refund are due to the assessee the Revenue cannot enforce the payment of demand especially when substantial issues are covered in favour of the assessee. However, in line with the earlier stay orders for Assessment Year 2015-16 as pointed out by the ld. counsel and in all fairness, we direct the Assessing Officer to adjust amount of Rs.50 crore (fifty crore) from the refund due to the assessee, against the outstanding demand and the balance demand shall be stayed for a period of six months or till passing of the order, whichever is earlier. Registry is also directed to fix the appeal on priority basis on 10th November, 2021.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
By way of aforesaid Stay Application, the applicant-assessee seeks for stay of outstanding demand of Rs.2714.03 crore for the aforementioned assessment year which are arising out of various additions made in the final assessment order in pursuance of DRP direction.
2. Before us, ld. counsel has given detail of the issues involved, amount of tax determined on the adjustment/AMP made on whether it is a covered issue or whether the assessee has a strong prima facie case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
