9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the issue involved in the appeal was debatable. As would be evident, in this behalf, the Tribunal had also taken recourse to the fact that the quantum appeal was pending in this court. Concededly, the quantum appeals were filed by the respondent/assessee with this court for the AY in issue, i.e., AY 2013-14 and other AYs as well. The other AYs qua which the appeals were filed, as noticed above, were AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16. Insofar as these appeals were concerned, the question of law, as framed, was answered in favour of the respondent/assessee and against the appellant/revenue, although, as noticed above, the respondent/assessee had preferred appeals before this court. The question of law which was framed and answered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative of the parties and perused the material on records. We have also considered the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Liquid Investment and Trading Co. (supra) and decision of Indore Bench of the Tribunal in Yugal Kishore Jajoo (supra) relied upon by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee earned revenues from two streams i.e. web hosting and domain registration charges and offered revenue from web hosting services to tax in the return filed for the relevant AYs. However, the assessee did not offer to tax its income from domain registration services for the reason that it was under a bonafide belief that this income is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. The said income has been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion of law which was framed and answered by this court in ITA No. 891/2018 [AY 2013-14]; ITA No. 261/2019 [AY 2014-15] and ITA No. 75/2023 [AY 2015-16] reads as follows: Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, Tribunal ] erred in holding that the income received by the appellant as a consideration for providing domain name registration services amounted to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]? 8. Given the position that the respondent/assessee before us has succeeded in the aforementioned appeals, the penalty imposed in the instant appeal cannot be sustained. 9. Therefore, the impugned order, in our opinion, requires no interferenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
