9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer has not specified the documents/information which, in his view, were required to be kept and maintained u/s 92D(1) and 92D(2)of the Act r.w.r 10D of the Rules but were not kept and maintained by the assessee. Coming to the decision of this Tribunal in Assessment Year 2006- 07 and 2008-09 [ 2020 (10) TMI 615 - ITAT DELHI] we find that the entire basis for deciding the issue in favour of the Revenue relates to the observations given in respect of independent accountant s report/documents for specified domestic transactions whereas in the present assessment, there is not even a whisper of any specified domestic transactions. Therefore, the reference to the order of this Tribunal in earlier Assessment Years by the ld. DR would do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts which were not at all applicable in these Assessment Years, and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, though the Miscellaneous Application preferred by the assessee was dismissed. 6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We find that the sole basis for levy of penalty is the finding that the assessee company had not kept and maintained the information and documents as required by Sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 92D of the Act. The Assessing Officer is also influenced by the fact that the assessee has entered into international transactions during the year under consideration. 7. The Assessing Officer further supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. AO to re-compute the profits attributable to the PE in line with the methodology as provided by the Hon'ble Tribunal. (iii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order in the Appellant's own case for AY 2005-07 and 2008- 09 has opined on the Issue of taxability of payments for IPLC charges. The Tribunal in the instant year, in consistency with the view taken in its order for the AY 2006-07 and 2008-09, upheld the contentions of the Appellant that the same are not taxable as 'Royalty' under the provisions of Article 12 of the DTAA and even otherwise; the IPLC charges are in the nature of reimbursements of expenses and accordingly not taxable in the hands of the Appellant in India. 10. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Rules but were not kept and maintained by the assessee. 15. Coming to the decision of this Tribunal in Assessment Year 2006- 07 and 2008-09 [supra], we find that the entire basis for deciding the issue in favour of the Revenue relates to the observations given in respect of independent accountant s report/documents for specified domestic transactions whereas in the present assessment, there is not even a whisper of any specified domestic transactions. Therefore, the reference to the order of this Tribunal in earlier Assessment Years by the ld. DR would do no good to the Revenue, as the facts are totally different. 16. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
