Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties
 M/s. InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., Ground Floor, Central Wing, Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi Vs. JCIT, Special Range : 4, New Delhi.
 Chatru Mal Garg Plot No.98, Sector 25, Faridabad, Haryana Vs. ACIT Circle 1 Faridabad
 Baxter India Pvt.Ltd., 5th Floor, Tower-A, Bldg.9, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), New Delhi.
 Sh. Ankit Kapoor, B-102, R.G. City Centre, Plot No. 4, Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-63(4), New Delhi
 Ashish Dham, C-1/2, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Room No.315, B Block, Civic Centre, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi
 Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, H.O.Near Bajrang Bhawan, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak.
 Arora & Associates Reality Limited, 131, GF, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi Vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore
 Kiran Sales Private Limited 12/42, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi. Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER Ward 14(3) New Delhi.
 National Housing Bank, Core-5 A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi
 Naveen Kumar Varshneya 20165, Prestige Shanti Niketan, Near ITPL, Whitefield, Bangalore Vs. ITO Ward- 7 (3) New Delhi
 AKT Investments Pvt. Ltd., 57, Lajpat Nagar-3, South Delhi, New Delhi. Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), New Delhi.
 DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi Vs. M/s. HTL Ltd, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai
 Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Nanauta, Sharanpur, Uttar Pradesh Vs. JCIT Range-3 Saharanpur

Baxter India Pvt.Ltd., 5th Floor, Tower-A, Bldg.9, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), New Delhi.
October, 30th 2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI “FRIDAY/I-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

BEFORE SHRI. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &
SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

S.A.No.-159/Del/2021
[In ITA No.869/Del/2021]
[Assessment Year : 2016-17]

Baxter India Pvt.Ltd., vs ITO,

5th Floor, Tower-A, Bldg.9, DLF Ward-4(1),

Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, New Delhi.

Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.

PAN-AAACB3906F

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &
Respondent by Sh. S.S.Tomer, Adv.
Sh. O.M.Prakash, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing 29.10.2021

Date of Pronouncement 29.10.2021

ORDER


PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

Through the present stay application, assessee is seeking stay of
outstanding tax demand of Rs.75.27 crores relating to Assessment Year
2016-17.

2. On the last date of hearing, it was contended that a rectification
application is pending before the Revenue authorities. Today, it is informed
that the requisite rectification has been carried out by the Revenue and the
demand is reduced to Rs.50.5 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further
submitted that the refunds of the earlier years are yet to be refunded to the
assessee. Therefore, he contended that out of outstanding disputed
S.A.No.-159/Del/2021
[In ITA No.869/Del/2021]

demand of Rs.50.5 crores, 20% of the disputed demand be adjusted against
the old refunds due to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee
submitted that the issues in dispute are covered in favour of the assessee
in this appeal and the assessee has a very strong case and every likelihood
of success.

3. Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and submitted that the
assessee be directed to deposit the entire outstanding demand.

4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material
available on record. The Revenue has not disputed about the outstanding
refund due to the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR stated that he would verify the
exact figure of the outstanding refunds due to the assessee. After
considering the totality of the fact and in the interest of justice, we deem it
proper to grant stay of the outstanding demand for a period of 90 days from
the date of receipt of the order subject to the following conditions:-

(a) that the assessee would deposit 5% of the outstanding
disputed demand on or before before 15.12.2021; and

(b) that the Revenue may adjust 15% of the outstanding disputed
demand out of the refunds due to the assessee.

5. Meanwhile, the Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing on
23.12.2021. The stay application is disposed in the terms stated above.

2|Page
S.A.No.-159/Del/2021
[In ITA No.869/Del/2021]

6. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed.

Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in
the presence of both the parties on 29th October, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-
(KUL BHARAT)
(ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
* Amit Kumar * ITAT, NEW DELHI

Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT

3|Page

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting