Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited vs. ACIT that application for further stay is in favour of assessee. The reasons are that firstly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances since the last stay was extended by the Tribunal, and secondly, the major demand which has been raised prima facie appears to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier as well as subsequent assessment years. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is fit case for extending the stay for the further period of six months or till the date of passing of the order in the appeal, whichever is earlier.
Facts of the Case
By this Stay Application, the assessee seeks for further extension of stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 49, 85, 50,051/-.
Contention of the Assessee
The ld counsel of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal from time to time had extended the stay as there was no fault on the part of the assessee to conduct the appeals and moreover all the terms laid down in such orders have been fully complied with. In the last stay order dated 7th August, 2015, vide Stay Application No. 219/Mum/2015, the Tribunal has noted that the assessee had already paid a sum of Rs. 10 crores and further amount of Rs. 8.07 crores has been adjusted by the Department against the outstanding demand. Considering all these facts, the assessee’s stay was extended. There is no change in the facts and circumstances.
He further submitted that the major issue relates to transfer pricing adjustment which is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10. Even on the corporate issues also, some of the issues are squarely covered. If the demands on such issues are considered, then assessee may not be required to pay further demand. The assessee had already paid the total tax of Rs. 18.08 crores (approx.) and if the demand relating to the issues which are squarely covered by the decisions of Tribunal are taken into account, then demand payable would be NIL.
Contention of the Revenue
The ld counsel of the revenue submitted that at least some part of the demand should be paid further.
Held by ITAT
ITAT held that application for further stay is in favour of assessee. The reasons for that firstly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances since the last stay was extended by the Tribunal, and secondly, the major demand which has been raised prima facie appears to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier as well as subsequent assessment years.
Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is fit case for extending the stay for the further period of six months or till the date of passing of the order in the appeal, whichever is earlier.
Accordingly stay application of the assessee allowed.
