TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Liquid Investment and Trading Co. (2010 (10) TMI 1021 - DELHI HIGH COURT), according to which, penalty cannot be levied when substantial question of law has been framed and admitted, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice. - decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 3418/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2018 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER REVENUE BY : SH. RAMAN CHAWLA, CIT ( DR ) ASSESSEE BY : S H . RAVI SHARMA, ADV ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-42, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The grounds raised read as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on 29.12.2008 at an income of ₹ 507,114,396/-. The additions were made on account of profits attributable to PE ₹ 455,171,917/- and IPLC charges (Taxable@10%) ₹ 4,81,48,179/-. 4. The Tribunal decided the assessee s appeal vide order dated 10.5.2013 in ITA No. 5243/Del/2011 in which ITAT upheld that Assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. This PE is in the form of fixed place PE. The Tribunal attributed 15% profits generated by the assessee to the Indian PE. On the third issue of taxability of IPLC charges as Equipment Royalty the payment is considered not taxable in the hands of the assessee. 5. Referring to the appeal filed by the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot being royalty are justified. ADMIT List for hearing on 29th April, 2015. 6. Also referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. vide ITA No.240/2009 dated 05.10.2010, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that when substantial question of law is admitted by the Hon'ble High Court, the issue becomes debatable and, therefore, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable. He accordingly submitted that in view of the above legal position and in view of the earlier decision of the ITAT in assessee s case for the assessment 2006-07, as aforesaid, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. 7. Ld. DR on the other hand s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
