9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Liquid Investment and Trading Co. (2010 (10) TMI 1021 - DELHI HIGH COURT), according to which, penalty cannot be levied when substantial question of law has been framed and admitted, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No.3417/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2018 - Shri R. K. Panda, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member Department by : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. Shri Mudit Sharma ORDER Per R. K. Panda, AM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 02.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1376/Del/2012 in which the Tribunal held that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. This PE is in the form of fixed place PE. The Tribunal attributed 15% profits generated by the assessee to the India PE. On the issue of taxability of software (taxable @ 15%) the Tribunal held it to be not taxable in the hands of assessee. On the third issue of taxability of IPLC charges as Equipment Royalty the payment is considered not taxable in the hands of the assessee. 6. Referring to the appeal filed by the assessee before the Hon ble High Court and vice-versa against the order of the Tribunal, he drew the attention of the Bench to the following questions of law that have been admitted by the Hon ble High Court :- The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the said decision has held that when substantial question of law is admitted by the Hon'ble High Court, the issue becomes debatable and, therefore, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable. He accordingly submitted that in view of the above legal position penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. 8. Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 9. After hearing both the sides, we find the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) has observed that the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the substantial question of law. Therefore, it is clear that the issue is subject to different interpretation. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
