TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the services extended by assessee, the consideration for such services could not be taxed under Article 12(4)( b) of the DTAA. In the facts of the present case assessee had offered explanation and the submissions as to why receipts were not offered to tax for the year under consideration, by relying on the legal position. Thus assessee had acted in a bona fides manner and had also furnished all material facts and particulars in respect of the same. - No penalty - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.4917/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2018 - SRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Sri Manoneet Dalal Sh. Yishu Goel, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Pandey, Sr. D.R. ORDER P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. DCIT under section 271(1)(c) ought to be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, amplify or modify any or all of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 27/09/10 declaring total income at nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) along with a detailed questionnaire and notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued to assessee. In response to the statutory notices, Representatives of the assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called for. 2.1. Ld.AO observed that asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make available Clause along with judicial precedents relied by assessee were not considered by authorities below. He submitted that assessee had not hidden any income relating to its receipts and therefore it cannot be said to have concealed the income for the year under consideration. Ld.AR submitted that neither assessee failed to offer explanation, nor explanation offered by assessee has been found to be malafide or false by Ld.AO. He placed reliance upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158. 4. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 5. Admittedly, assessee has not challenged addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be taxed under Article 12(4)( b) of the DTAA. Assessee relied upon various decisions of Jurisdictional High Court as well as Authority of Advance Ruling in the case of CIT vs De Bears India Minerals Pvt.Ltd., reported in 346 ITR 467 and Perfetti van Melle in Holding BV AAR 869 of 2010 respectively. Thus two legal interpretations were possible and there was genuine and credible plea of not imposing penalty for concealment. In the facts of the present case assessee had offered explanation and the submissions as to why receipts were not offered to tax for the year under consideration, by relying on the legal position. Thus assessee had acted in a bona fides manner and had also furnished all material facts and particulars in respect of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
