9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed by the Supreme Court in M/s Mitsubishi Corporation [ 2021 (9) TMI 875 - SUPREME COURT] This Court is also in agreement with the opinion of the Tribunal that the penalty can only be levied in such cases where concealment of income has been proven. If the quantum order itself has been set aside in an appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee, there is no question of penalty being levied. Also see M/S. HARSH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [ 2020 (12) TMI 1082 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - No substantial question of law arises. - ITA 47/2022 & C.M.No.12833/2022 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocates. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payer in deducting tax at source from the payments made to the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the decision in Jacabs Civil Incorporated (supra) relates to the AY 2001-02. 15. Be that as it may, inasmuch as we held in the preceding paragraphs that there is no royalty income involved in this matter, and for want of Permanent Establishment, the business income of the assessee is not taxable in India, we, therefore, in these circumstances and also while respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold this issue in favour of the assessee in all the assessment years. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged and this Court has framed substantial questions of law in the appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee, it shows that the alleged concealment is not final and the issue is disputable. Consequently, the penalty levied by the assessing officer cannot survive in such a case. 12. It is pertinent to note that this Court in similar cases [CIT Vs. Liquid Investment Ltd, ITA 240/2009, CIT Vs H B Leasing Finance Co. Ltd. I.T.A. No. 1612/2010 and CIT Vs. Thomson Press India Ltd, ITA 426,440/2013] has upheld the deletion of the penalty on the same ground i.e. the fact that appeals were admitted proved that the issue was debatable. The relevant portion of the orders in CIT Vs. Liquid Investment Ltd (supra) and CIT Vs. Thomson Press Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
