TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iaDenmark DTAA. In any case, the grievance of the Revenue is not sustainable as the impugned order on appreciation of evidence has held that particulars of receipts in respect of the four cases were filed with the return of income. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view. Nothing has been shown to us which would indicate that the view taken by the Tribunal is not covered by the nexus test laid down by this Court in Balaji Shipping (supra). - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.608 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2016 - M.S.SANKLECHA, AND S.C. GUPTE, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Tejveer Singh For The Respondent : Mr. P.F. Kaka, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. Divesh Chawla, i/b. Mr. Atul Jasani P.C: . This appeal under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 9 of IndiaDenmark DTAA. The Assessing Officer during Assessment proceedings was satisfied with regard to the respondentassessee earning income attributable to the above activity in respect of 141 ships (cases) out of 145 ships (cases). Therefore, only the income attributable to the 4 cases which were not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer was brought to tax under the Indian law. (b) On appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order holds that it is undisputed that the respondentassessee is engaged in shipping business to which Article 9 of IndiaDenmark DTAA would apply as is evident by the benefit being granted in respect of 141 cases out of 145 cases. The impugned order holds that the Assessing Officer incorrectly disallowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g (supra). Therefore, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of Article 9 of IndiaDenmark DTAA. In any case, the grievance of the Revenue is not sustainable as the impugned order on appreciation of evidence has held that particulars of receipts in respect of the four cases were filed with the return of income. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view. Nothing has been shown to us which would indicate that the view taken by the Tribunal is not covered by the nexus test laid down by this Court in Balaji Shipping (supra). (e) In view of the above, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Re. Question No.(II) : (a) Mr. Tejveer Singh, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
