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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...