BMW India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has granted a conditional stay on the recovery of an outstanding tax demand of Rs. 11,31,66,287/- against BMW India Private Limited for the assessment year 2016-17. The decision, pronounced on April 4, 2025, requires the luxury automobile manufacturer to cooperate in the speedy disposal of its main appeal.
BMW India had approached the ITAT seeking a stay on the recovery of the demand, which arose from an assessment order dated March 30, 2021, passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The total adjustment made to the assessee’s income on a substantive basis under Section 92CA, related to transfer pricing, amounted to Rs. 1,25,88,46,392/-. Additionally, protective additions totaling Rs. 178,36,19,696/- were also made.
Background of the Stay Application:
This stay application (SA No. 228/Del/2025) is a continuation of earlier proceedings. The assessee had previously filed a stay application (SA No. 71/Del/2021) for the same assessment year, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on March 19, 2025. That order granted BMW India the liberty to file a fresh application for extension of stay, while restraining the Revenue from taking coercive recovery measures.
During an earlier hearing on June 14, 2021, the Tribunal had granted interim protection to the assessee on the condition that BMW India deposit 20% of the demand. In compliance with this directive, BMW India deposited an amount of Rs. 2,26,33,258/- with the Government Treasury on June 17, 2021, on account of corporation tax.
Assessee’s Arguments:
The learned counsel for BMW India contended that since 20% of the outstanding demand had already been deposited, a stay on the recovery of the balance amount should be granted. It was highlighted that the assessee had not sought any adjournments since filing the corresponding appeal, and in fact, the Department had been requesting adjournments periodically.
Furthermore, the counsel brought to the Tribunal’s attention the company’s past history concerning similar issues in previous assessment years:
