M/S. NIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

SA 10/BANG/2026

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Nidec Industrial Automation India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru, which filed a stay application (SA No.10/Bang/2026) seeking an extension of stay on the recovery of an outstanding tax demand for the assessment year 2018-19. The original stay was granted by a Coordinate Bench in 2025. The assessee argued that the delay in the appeal's disposal was not their fault and that they had complied with the conditions of the original stay. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) opposed the extension, citing a Supreme Court stay on a similar issue. However, the Tribunal found no change in circumstances since the original stay was granted and noted that the legal issue was supported by decisions from various High Courts in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838081 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2026
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALUSAMY N.
• Assessee Lawyers: TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR; VARIOUS
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

"SA No.10/Bang/2026 M/s. Nidec Industrial Automation India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No.10/Bang/2026 (Arising out of IT(TP)A No.978/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Nidec Industrial Automation India Pvt. Ltd. #45, Nagarur, Huskur Road Off Tumkur Road Near Golden Palms Resort Bengaluru 562 123 Karnataka PAN NO : AABCT2662D Vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)(1) Bengaluru APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Balusamy N., D.R. Date of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present stay application SA No.10/Bang/2026 filed by M/s. Nidec Industrial Automation India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru (“Assessee/Applicant”) for the assessment year 2018-19 in IT(TP)A No.978/Bang/2022 seeking extension of stay originally granted by the order of the Coordinate Bench on 25.6.2025 in SP No.42/Bang/2023 for the reason that the assessee had raised a legal ground of DIN, which is covered in favour of the assessee by various High Courts. 2. The recovery of outstanding demand amounting to Rs.14,12,91,000/- was directed to be kept in abeyance for a period Printed from counselvise.com SA No.10/Bang/2026 M/s. Nidec Industrial Automation India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 2 of 3 of 6 months or till the disposal of the appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court, whichever is earlier. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in disposal of the appeal is not on account of the assessee and the assessee has also complied with the condition of the original stay granted and therefore, the assessee deserves extension of stay. 4. The ld. D.R. on the other hand vehemently submitted that the judgement relied upon by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue and the revenue had filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has granted stay in the case of CIT Vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. in SLP (Civil) Diary Nos.46964 of 2023 order dated 3.1.2024, reported in (2024) 158 taxmann.com 247 (SC). Further, the ld. D.R. submitted that considering the amendment proposed in the current year budget & the bill is not yet passed, the extension of stay may be granted subject to the condition that assessee pays at least 20% of the outstanding demand. 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the order of the coordinate bench dated 25.6.2025. On going through the details submitted by the assessee, we take a note of the fact that non- disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee and there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case when original stay was granted. The ld. D.R. also could not point out that the delay in disposal of the appeal is on account of the assessee. We also take note of the fact that presently, the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of various High Courts. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves the extension of stay. Printed from counselvise.com SA No.10/Bang/2026 M/s. Nidec Industrial Automation India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 3 5.1 In view of the above facts, we direct the AO to keep the recovery of disputed demand amounting to Rs.14,12,91,000/- in abeyance till further period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th Feb, 2026 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 20th Feb, 2026. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "