Skip to main content

Tax tribunal accepts LinkedIn info as proof

A tax tribunal has accepted information on social networking site LinkedIn as additional evidence to determine whether the liaison office of a foreign entity generated taxable income in India.

GE Group had set up a liaison office in India to act as a communication channel between the foreign enterprise and its customers in India. The tax department conducted an investigation at the local office, and found it was carrying out certain impermissible income-generating activities in India.

The department found various expatriates were acting as business heads for Indian operations and certain employees were actively involved in concluding sales for the foreign entities of GE in India. The department alleged that it could be a permanent establishment (PE) and thus taxable.

The tax department adduced the details of various expatriate employees of GE available on LinkedIn as additional evidence in this case and produced it during the proceedings before the Delhi bench of the income-tax appellate tribunal (ITAT). The tribunal passed an interim order admitting the information as additional evidence. Whether a PE existed or not was to be decided in another hearing.

However, the interim order has been stayed by the jurisdictional high court, barring the tax authorities from producing or placing reliance on LinkedIn profiles of past and present GE employees as evidence.

If the high court lifts the stay and allows information available on social networking sites as evidence, the tax department would be able to use all this data in a bigger way in future. The department is looking at innovative ways to gather information from third party sources and web is one of the options. ITAT had observed that LinkedIn profiles were not in the nature of hearsay because it was the employees themselves who had given all the relevant details and these details related to them.

GE had contended that the LinkedIn profiles of various employees filed by the tax authority had no probative value whatsoever and no relevance to or bearing on the issue at hand.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/tax-tribunal-accepts-linkedin-info-as-proof-114072401469_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even