9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 387 days. 2. Mr Satyen Sethi, counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 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 sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings that the transaction was at arm's length. Thus, the addition concerning the purchase of a tunnel-boring machine was deleted. 11.1 The reason that we have referred to this aspect of the matter as it forms the foundation for triggering 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-à-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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as related parties since the Government of India holds share in these Government undertaking." 21. Besides this, as to whether SPMCECL was a related party is an issue qua which there can possibly be more than one view. The respondent/assessee has taken a stand 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
