XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA, BENGALURU V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

SA 145/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., which filed stay applications for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22, seeking an extension of a previously granted stay against the recovery of substantial tax demands. The original stay was granted due to ongoing disputes over the tax demands of Rs.1,995 Crores for 2020-21 and Rs.1,736 Crores for 2021-22. The Tribunal noted that there had been no change in the circumstances since the original stay and subsequent extensions were granted. Both parties agreed that the delay in the appeal process was not due to the assessee, leading to the decision to extend the stay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791711 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N. BAUSAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: A. SHANKAR
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

"SP Nos.145 & 146/Bang/2025 M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SP Nos.145 & 146/Bang/2025 (Arising out of IT(TP)A Nos.1041 & 1042/Bang/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Orchid (Block E), Ground Floor, Embassy Tech Village Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Bellandur SO Kadabeesanahalli Bengaluru 560 103 Karnataka, India PAN NO : AAACD1645B Vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1) Bengaluru APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri A. Shankar, Sr. A.R. Respondent by : Sri N. Bausamy, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two stay applications filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 for seeking extension of stay originally granted by this Tribunal in SP Nos. 25 & 26/Bang/2024 vide order dated 6.6.2024 which was extended by this Tribunal in SP Nos. 70 & 71/Bang/2024 vide order dated 26.12.2024 and further extended in SP Nos.49 & 50/Bang/2025 vide order dated 20.6.2025. The facts were that the said stay was granted for the recovery of demand of Rs.1,995 Crores for assessment year 2020-21 and Rs.1,736 Crores for assessment year 2021-22. Printed from counselvise.com SP Nos.145 & 146/Bang/2025 M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 3 2. Before us, the ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case when the original stay as well as subsequent stay was granted and the delay in disposal of appeal is also not attributable to the assessee and accordingly prayed that the stay may be extended for a further period of 6 months or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier. 3. The ld. D.R. on the other hand have no objection whatsoever if the extension of stay is granted in favour of the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Before us, both the parties confirmed that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case when original stay as well as subsequent extension of stay was granted. Further, we also take note of the fact that the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. We also take note of the fact that in the present case, the main reason for non-disposal of these appeals is because of the DIN issues involved and accordingly these matters are getting adjourned either at the request of the revenue or due to non-functioning of the Bench. Thus, we notice that the delay in disposal of the appeals are not attributable on the part of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to extend the stay already granted to the assessee for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier. We also clarify that the stay will be subject to the terms & conditions mentioned in the order of this coordinate bench dated 6.6.2024. Printed from counselvise.com SP Nos.145 & 146/Bang/2025 M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 3 5. In the result, these applications for extension of stay to keep the recovery of outstanding demand in abeyance are allowed for both these assessment years. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th Dec, 2025 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 12th Dec, 2025. 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 "