GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/13599/2017

AI Insights

Google India Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which involved a demand of Rs.133,39,74,680 for the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner sought to prevent the imposition of this demand until their appeal was resolved. The Tribunal had previously modified an interim order requiring the petitioner to deposit 55% of the demand and retain 20% in their account. This was further modified by the High Court, reducing the deposit to 20% after 30% was paid and requiring a bank guarantee for the remaining 25%. The High Court's decision, which was affirmed by the Division Bench, rendered the writ petition infructuous as the issues raised had already been addressed in the earlier rulings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697307 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Writ Petition Nos.52358-59/2017, W.P.No.55578/2017 and connected matters, W.A.Nos.50-52/2018 and allied matters
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANTH SHIVADASS
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2011-12; Bank guarantee; Demand; Income Tax; Interim order; Writ petition
• Section: 201(1); 201(1A); 156; 226; 227

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.13599/2017 (T – IT) BETWEEN: GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.3, RMZ INFINITY, TOWER E, 4TH FLOOR, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 016, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SENIOR CORPORATE COUNSEL MR. THIRUMALESH GANGAPPA. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI. PRASHANTH SHIVADASS, ADV., FOR SRI. ADITYA V. BHAT, ADV.] AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 (1) (2), ROOM NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- III BMTC COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - 2 - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 AT ANNEX-M PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN S.P.58/BANG/2017 IN ITA NO.559/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R Petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.3.2017 [Annexure-M to the writ petition] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [‘Tribunal’, for short], to the extent of the order in SP.No.58/Bang/2017 in ITA No.559/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2011-12, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondent not to impose the demand to the extent of Rs.133,39,74,680/- pursuant to the notice of demand dated 29.02.2016 [Annexure-D to the writ petition] issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’, for short], relating to the assessment year 2011-12, till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. - 3 - 2. The grievance of the petitioner is, appeal filed by the Assessee before the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2011-12 against the order under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act has not been disposed of, culminating in the demand raised by the Authorities impugned herein. 3. It is not in dispute that pursuant to filing of this writ petition, on the application filed by the Assessee for extension of interim order, the Tribunal placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.52358-59/2017, modified the extended interim order, to deposit 55% of the demand and to retain the balance of another 20% in the account of the petitioner maintained with Citi Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Bengaluru. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.55578/2017 and connected matters which came to be disposed of on 13.12.2017, modifying the order of the Tribunal to the - 4 - effect that the petitioner shall pay 20% to the respondent-Department since 30% of the outstanding dues has already been paid, for the balance of 25%, the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee on or before 31.12.2017. This order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.50-52/2018 and allied matters. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the interim order of the Tribunal challenged in this petition merges with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.55578/2017 and connected matters affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.50-52/2018 and connected matters. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous. Sd/- JUDGE AN/-, ln. "