Calcutta HC: Sharing screenshots of virtual Court proceedings on LinkedIn amounts to Contempt of Court

In course of the hearing today, this Court indicated to the parties the following

impropriety evident from the aforesaid screenshot/publication; ‐

[a] a screenshot of Court Proceeding has been taken which is equivalent to a

photograph of a Court Proceeding, without the leave of this Court.

[b] The screenshot was published in a personal web page of a website called

‘Linked In’ about two months ago without the leave or knowledge of this Court.

[b] an insinuation may be evident from the aforesaid writing on the page in

question seen with the screenshot.

The department is directed to number a suo motu contempt proceeding against Mr.

S. Kakrania, Advocate who shall answer the Rule that is issued herewith.

Formal drawing up of Rule and service of the same is dispensed with since Mr.

Kakrania is personally present in the hearing today. 

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

ORIGINAL SIDE

GA NO.820 OF 2020

WITH

CS NO.2 OF 2017

LINDSAY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD VS. LAXMI NIWAS MITTAL & ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA

Date: 12th August, 2020.

Print Page

Income tax tribunal admitted contents of LinkedIn profiles of employees as additional evidence

Tribunal admits contents of LinkedIn profiles of employees as additional evidence for PE determination of employer (GE )

The issue before the Tribunal was on admission as additional evidence, the information gathered from LinkedIn profiles of certain employees of the GE Group by the Tax Authority for determining whether the concerned GE Group entity, through its offices or through its Indian affiliate i.e. GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (Indian affiliate), constituted Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 

The Tribunal admitted the evidence on the ground that same has a considerable bearing on facts where the taxpayer has not furnished appropriate details which were sought for. The Tribunal held that these profile details are similar to statements given by a person and, it cannot therefore be said, to be hearsay evidence. Further, the taxpayer is free to refute information contained in the profiles by bringing on record contrary facts to dislodge the claims made by the Tax Authority. The Tribunal, in this interim order, did not conclude on existence of the PE and has fixed the matter for further hearing on merits. 

Print Page