TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the assessee has paid tax by way of TDS amounting to Rs.153,23,33,751/-, which covers more than 50% of the disputed tax liability of the assessee. Therefore assessee cannot be directed to pay any further amount out of the disputed demand. However, considering the fact that the assessee is a non-resident, to secure the interest of Revenue, we direct the assessee to furnish a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.10.00 crores before the Ao on or before 2nd of June, 2023, which shall remain in force till the disposal of the corresponding appeal of the assessee. Subject to furnishing of such bank guarantee within the stipulated date, recovery of the balance outstanding demand shall be stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion agreement with its employer and sold the CCPS to group entities of SB Group US in Singapore for a consideration of USD 104,398,939. Since, the CCPS were arising to the assessee on 29.12.2014 and they were sold on 01.02.2017, the assessee treated the gain from sale of CCPS as long-term capital gain and such gain amounting to USD 64,389,262 (converted to Indian Rupees amounting to Rs.431,08,61,148/-) after reduction of cost of acquisition and offered it to tax u/s.112(1((c)(iii) read with Rule 115 in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year. He submitted, since, the buyer had deducted tax at source amounting to Rs.153,23,33,751/- from the consideration paid, the assessee after adjusting such pre-paid taxes, claimed ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld at source, interest u/s. 234B cannot be charged. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation (2021) 438 ITR 174(SC). He submitted, after exclusion of interest component, the balance demand works out to Rs.248,35,14,727/-. Drawing our attention to the first proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act, ld. Counsel submitted, since, the assessee has already paid an amount of Rs. 153,23,33,751/- by way of TDS, which covers more than 50% of the disputed tax demand, recovery of the balance outstanding demand shall be stayed. However, on instructions, he submitted that assessee is willing to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.5 crores towards security. 4. Learned Departmental Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged u/s. 234B of the Act, being an amount of Rs.57,07,08,540/-. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation (supra), we find substantial merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee that interest u/s. 234B is not leviable as the assessee is a non-resident and tax has been withheld on the gain derived. So, if the interest component is removed, balance tax demand works out to Rs. 248,35,14,727/-. Whereas, the assessee has paid tax by way of TDS amounting to Rs.153,23,33,751/-, which covers more than 50% of the disputed tax liability of the assessee. Therefore, in our view, the assessee cannot be directed to pay any further amount out of the disputed demand. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
