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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more