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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more