NIVEA India Private Limited v. ACIT-10(3)(1), Mumbai
[Citation -2019-LL-0830-117]

Citation 2019-LL-0830-117
Appellant Name NIVEA India Private Limited
Respondent Name ACIT-10(3)(1), Mumbai
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/08/2019
Assessment Year 2013-14
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags transfer pricing adjustment • outstanding demand • draft assessment • stay of recovery • stay petition • amp expenses • reimbursement of expense
Bot Summary: Pursuant to the draft assessment order, assessee moved the case before the DRP and DRP vide directions dated 7th September, 2017 upheld the order of the Assessing Officer, thereby the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.43,47,74,110/- and raised a demand of Rs.21,74,09,210/- by way of notice under section 156 dated 30/10/2017. Aggrieved against the order of TPO, AO and DRP assessee moved before the Tribunal and filed appeal before the same vide ITA No.6848/Mum/2017. The Ld.Representative for the assessee stated that the assessee has paid a major amount of Rs.8.00 crores and the balance outstanding demand is only Rs. 13,74,09,208/-. The Ld.Representative for the assessee stated that the assessee had paid 37 of the total outstanding including interest. We are of the view that the assessee has a prima-facie case and the assessee could make a case for stay of balance outstanding demand. The appeal of the assessee has already been fixed for hearing on 24/09/2019. The assessee shall not seek adjournments except under exceptional circumstances.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A. No.344/MUM/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.6848/Mum/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 ) NIVEA India Private Limited, 4th Floor, Art Guild House, Phoenix Market City, Kurla (West), Mumbai 400 070. PAN: AACCN 1990P ...... Applicant Vs. ACIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Applicant by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Respondent by : Shri Manish Kumar Singh Date of hearing : 30/08/2019 Date of pronouncement : 30/08/2019 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, J.M: By way of captioned application, applicant seeks stay of recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.13,74,09,208/-, which is arising on account of adjustment made by Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ). following is Transfer Pricing adjustment made vide order dated31/10/2016: Advertisement, marketing and promotional (AMP) expenses reimbursement with mark up. : Rs.68,29,30,000/- 2 S.A. No.344/MUM/2019 2. Pursuant to draft assessment order, assessee moved case before DRP and DRP vide directions dated 7th September, 2017 upheld order of Assessing Officer, thereby Assessing Officer computed total income of assessee at Rs.43,47,74,110/- and raised demand of Rs.21,74,09,210/- by way of notice under section 156 dated 30/10/2017. Aggrieved against order of TPO, AO and DRP assessee moved before Tribunal and filed appeal before same vide ITA No.6848/Mum/2017. This appeal is scheduled for hearing now on 24/09/2019. 3. Ld.Representative for assessee stated that assessee has paid major amount of Rs.8.00 crores and balance outstanding demand is only Rs. 13,74,09,208/-. Ld.Representative for assessee stated that assessee had paid 37% of total outstanding including interest. He stated that main issue arising in assessee s appeal is covered by decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No.7744/Mum/2012 , A.Y.2008-09 and other vide order dated 21/03/2018. He stated that in case this issue is covered, balance demand will be nil. Hence, he requested for stay of outstanding demand. When these facts are pointed out to Ld. Departmental Representative, he only requested that some part of outstanding demand be asked to be paid. 4. After hearing both parties and noting facts and circumstances of case, we note that assessee had paid 37% of total outstanding demand and that other issues are covered by 3 S.A. No.344/MUM/2019 Tribunal order in assessee s own case consistently in earlier years. Therefore, we are of view that assessee has prima-facie case and assessee could make case for stay of balance outstanding demand. Hence we stay outstanding demand for Rs.13,74,09,208/- for period 180 days from today or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. appeal of assessee has already been fixed for hearing on 24/09/2019. assessee shall not seek adjournments except under exceptional circumstances. 5. In result, stay application is allowed, as above. Above decision was pronounced in open court in presence of both parties at conclusion of hearing on 30/08/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 30/08/2019 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant , 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai NIVEA India Private Limited v. ACIT-10(3)(1), Mumbai
Report Error