CALLAWAY GOLF INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI V. ITO, NEW DELHI

SA 210/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Callaway Golf India Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against an assessment order that substantially increased its declared income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The initial assessment added a significant amount to the income declared by the company, which was primarily due to transfer pricing adjustments. The ITAT had previously remitted the issue of substantive addition back to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer after deleting a protective addition. The High Court's intervention led to the appeal being restored to the ITAT for fresh adjudication. Meanwhile, the company filed a stay petition against the demand raised due to the assessment order, arguing that the delay in the appeal process was not their fault and they had already paid a substantial part of the demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 22920 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHARM VEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SHARMA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Application of stay
• Section: 92CA

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N.PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Stay No.210/Del/2020 (In ITA No. 470/Del/2017) A.Y.2012-13 Callaway Golf India Pvt. Ltd. 207-209, DLF Tower-A, Jasola District Centre, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi PAN: AADCC7557J Vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Room No. 229-B C.R.Building, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, AR Respondent by Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR) Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 03/02/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This Stay Petition is linked with the assessee’s appeal; ITA No. 470/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Vide this petition, the assessee has requested for stay of demand of Rs. 3,36,58,200/-. 2. The assessee, engaged in the distribution of golf equipments, golf balls, packaged kits & Accessories, filed its Income Tax Return (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) declaring income of Rs.16,33,420/-. The case was picked up for Stay No.210/Del/2020 Callaway Golf India Pvt. Ltd. 2 scrutiny which resulted consequential assessment at income of Rs. 8,19,19,324/-. The assessed income includes substantive addition of Rs. 4,32,34,167/- and protective addition of Rs.3,70,51,737/- as transfer pricing adjustment. These additions were made on the basis of difference in ALP under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). The matter went up to the ITAT, who vide order dated 23.08.2017 deleted the protective addition of Rs.3,70,51,000/- and remitted the issue relating to substantive addition to the file of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’)/Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘TPO’). The initial stay was granted in this case was vide order dated 17.01.2017 by the Tribunal. 2.1 Aggrieved with the order of the ITAT remitting the issue of substantive addition back to the file of the AO; the assessee filed appeal before the Hon’ble High Court which restored this appeal before the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Pursuant to that order of the Hon’ble High Court, the appeal is pending before the Tribunal. Meanwhile, afresh stay petition was filed by the assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee had paid more than 30% of the outstanding demand (based on the substantive addition). Therefore, he prayed for stay of the demand till the disposal of appeal in Stay No.210/Del/2020 Callaway Golf India Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 470/Del/2017 as the delay in disposal of the appeal was not attributable to the assessee. 3.1 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR opposed the stay. 4. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material available on the record. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. Considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has paid the demand of Rs.70,00,000/-, which is more than 30% of the disputed demand and the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the appellant, we are of the considered view that it is fit case for granting stay. We therefore, grant the stay for the period of 6 months or till the disposal of appeal whichever is earlier. 5. The stay application of assessee is allowed as above. Order pronounced in open Court on 03 February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (C.N.PRASAD) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:03/02/2025 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT-DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "