PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

SA 107/MUM/2024

AI Insights

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. filed four stay applications (SA No. 106 to 109/MUM/2024) concerning outstanding tax demands for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The applications were based on ongoing disputes related to transfer pricing adjustments and corporate tax adjustments. The Tribunal considered the payments already made by the assessee against the disputed demands and the compliance with the terms of the previous stays. The Department opposed the extension of stay, but the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, noting the compliance and the reasons for the delay in the disposal of the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40835 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Roka Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Reasonable cause; Extension of stay
• Section: 250; 22

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No. 106/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 7518/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 SA No. 107/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 7237/MUM/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 SA No. 108/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 6610/MUM/201 Assessment Year: 2013-14 SA No. 109/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 1366/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. Cardibal Gracias Road, Chakala Andheri East, Mumbai-400 099 (PAN : AAACP6332M) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 10(3)(2), Mumbai (Assessee) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar, CA, Ms. Sukanya Jain, CA and Ms. Kinjal Patel, CA Revenue : Shri Uodal Raj Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are four applications for grant of extension of stay as under:- SA No.106 to 109/Mum/2024 Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd.., A.Y. 12-13 to 15-16 2 i. SA No. 106/Mum/2024 in ITA No. 7518/Mum/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 is with respect to outstanding tax demand of Rs. 248,258,770/-which was originally stayed by order in SA No. 480/M/2019 dated 13.12.2019 subject to payment of Rs. 5 crores in instalment. Further extension was granted from time to time and the last stay order dated 17.04.2024 in SA No. 37/Mum/2024 was passed extending the stay. ii. SA No. 107/Mum/2020 is filed in ITA No. 7237/Mum/2018 for assessment year 2014-15 requesting to keep the outstanding demand of Rs. 206,137,548/- in abeyance. Original stay was granted vide order dated 01.02.2019 in SA No. 19/Mum/2019 subject to payment of Rs. 250 lakhs. The stay was further extended last by order dated 17.04.2024 in SA No. 40/Mum/2024. iii. SA No. 108/Mum/2024 is in ITA No. 6610/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2013-14 requesting to keep the outstanding demand of Rs. 151,694,590/- in abeyance. Originally stay was granted to the assessee which was granted vide order dated 16.03.2018 subject to the payment of Rs. 250 lakhs before 31.03.2018. The stay was further extended from time to time and the last order extending such stay was granted as per order dated 17.04.2024 in SA No. 38/Mum/2024. SA No.106 to 109/Mum/2024 Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd.., A.Y. 12-13 to 15-16 3 iv. SA No. 109/Mum/2024 is in ITA No. 1366/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 for extension of stay to keep the outstanding demand in abeyance of Rs. 176,073,930/-. Original stay was granted in No. 433/Mum/2017 dated 06.10.2017 which was further extended in SA No. 39/Mum/2024 as per order dated 17.04.2024. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned authorized representative submitted that assessee has made an application for settlement of part of the transfer pricing dispute under bilateral advance pricing agreement, part of the dispute under unilateral advance pricing agreement, therefore, these outstanding demands would be covered by those spending agreements. He therefore further submitted that part of the transfer pricing adjustment would be pending to be adjudicated by the coordinate bench which are not covered by above advance pricing agreements and there are certain corporate tax adjustments which would be contested before the tribunal. He submits that bilateral advance pricing agreement has already been entered into and the tax liability arising out of that is required to be paid under section 92CD of the act. A unilateral advance pricing agreement is still pending. He submits that if the amount of outstanding tax covered under the bilateral advance pricing agreement is reduced from the total tax liability, then for all the four years the revised disputed demand would be Rs. 837,427,058/- and out of which assessee has already deposited Rs. 26,17,00,000/-, He submits that if year wise percentage of payment made against the pending outstanding demand is considered, it is 38.45%, 28.05%, 27.60% and 27.13% respectively. To substantiate the above claim, he furnished a chart. According to him, Department sought adjournment on two previous occasions relying on the decision of SA No.106 to 109/Mum/2024 Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd.., A.Y. 12-13 to 15-16 4 Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Roka Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., for which additional ground was taken by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee requested for extension of stay as the delay in disposal of appeal is not on account of the assessee and further balance of convenience as examined in earlier stay orders are also in favour of the assessee. He also submitted that has complied with the terms and conditions of the earlier stay 3. The learned departmental representative objected to the above extension of stay in all assessment years. 4. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the earlier orders where stay granted to the assessee as well as the chart submitted by the assessee. We find that the assessee has complied with the directions of earlier stay granted. From the chronology of events submitted by the assessee, it is evident that delay in disposal of these appeals is not without reasonable cause and not on the part of the assessee. After considering the chart submitted by the assessee, it is evident that revised disputed demand relatable to the additions related to pending unilateral advance pricing agreement other transfer pricing issues and corporate tax adjustments/additions, is Rs. 837,427,058/- against which assessee has already deposited Rs. 261,700,000/-, assessee has already pre- deposited 31.25%. Thus, the assessee deserves an extension of stay already granted. Thus, we extend the stay already granted by a further period of 180 days or till the disposal of these appeals, whichever is earlier. SA No.106 to 109/Mum/2024 Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd.., A.Y. 12-13 to 15-16 5 5. Accordingly, all the above 4 stay petitions for respective assessment years are allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 22 October, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 22 October, 2024 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to : 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "