9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UCG. There is a downstream control by SASAC of SPMCECL.The record also shows that the two joint venture partners i.e., L T and SUCG holds shares in the ratio of 68:32 in SPMCECL. L T, thus, has a dominant control in the joint venture. Besides this, as to whether SPMCECL was a related party is an issue qua which there can possibly be more than one view. Assessee has taken a stand that the legal advice that it received seems to indicate that it was not a related party. CIT(A) has done its own analysis of the Chinese Law and concluded that it was a related party to the transaction and hence required disclosure. One can only say that insofar as Chinese Law is concerned, it is a matter of fact which could only be ascertained, at the very l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms. ITA 518/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 6. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 28.10.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, Tribunal ]. 7. The only issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether or not the penalty order dated 27.09.2018, passed under Section 271AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, The Act ] should be sustained. 8. The record shows that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A) ] had confirmed the penalty order. 8.1 The record also shows that the penalty was imposed on the respondent/assessee on the basis of the fact that it had neither reported the transaction concerni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iggering penalty proceedings against the respondent/assessee. 12. Furthermore, what is required to be noticed is that the quantum proceedings were fought right up to the Tribunal. 13. In sum, insofar as the addition made vis- -vis the tunnel-boring machine is concerned, the conclusion drawn was that the transaction was at Arm s Length Price. 14. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, based on the shareholding structure of the respondent/assessee, concluded that the assessee had not made disclosures, as required under Section 92E of the Act. 15. The Tribunal, in our opinion, while examining the veracity of the view taken both by the AO and the CIT(A), has adopted the correct approach. 16. Before we advert to what the tribunal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tand that the legal advice that it received seems to indicate that it was not a related party. The CIT(A) has done its own analysis of the Chinese Law and concluded that it was a related party to the transaction and hence required disclosure. 22 One can only say that insofar as Chinese Law is concerned, it is a matter of fact which could only be ascertained, at the very least, by having an expert in Chinese Law being produced as a witness. 23. That apart, we agree with Mr Sethi that the reasonable cause defence which is statutorily ingrained in Section 273B of the Act, perhaps, is the basis of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. 23.1 Section 273B of the Act, which refers to various penalty provisions, [including Section 271AA] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
