9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, directing for payment may not be justified considering the favorable development (from the assessee’s stand-point) of the decision in Tata Consultancy Services Limited (2015 (11) TMI 862 - ITAT MUMBAI), which would cover the transfer pricing adjustment in its entirety, besides the several decisions by the tribunal noted in the stay application toward the other (five) transfer pricing adjustments (for ₹ 103.45 cr.) made in assessment. We are also painfully conscious that huge sums (of the assessee) stand locked up in disputed payments, for which it is not responsible in any manner. In view of the above, in our considered view, the assessee deserves a stay without any further payment. The assessee shall not seek adjournment with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 and 2008-09, stay stands already granted by the tribunal, and for which he would take us to the tribunal s order for those years, placed on record, reading out from that for A.Y. 2007-08, i.e., the first year (in SA No. 264/Mum/2011 dated 21.12.2011). In fact, there has been, further, a favorable development since in-as-much as the tribunal, following the decision by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2014] 361 ITR 531 (Bom.), has vide its order in Dy. CIT vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited (in ITA No. 7513/Mum/2010 dated 04.11.2015), held of the transfer pricing adjustments made in contravention of the provision of section 92CA of the Act as not valid. As such, in all cases where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 21.12.2011 supra. The ld. counsel for the assessee would, in rejoinder, take us through Flap 7 of its paper-book, which is a statement of the disputed tax liability paid in respect of the completed assessments, which outstand from A.Y. 1996-97 onwards (up to A.Y. 2010-11), and toward which an aggregate of ₹ 1953.65 crores stands paid, blocking over 20% of the assessee s borrowed funds of ₹ 9000 crores, even as it anticipates a refund of substantial amount of the said sum. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The tribunal has, with reference to the issues listed at (a) and (c) above (refer para 2), expressed its satisfaction of the assessee having a strong prima facie case in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
