Director of Income-tax-II v. Pioneer Overseas Corporation
[Citation -2015-LL-0303-49]
| Citation | 2015-LL-0303-49 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Director of Income-tax-II |
| Respondent Name | Pioneer Overseas Corporation |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 03/03/2015 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | double taxation avoidance convention • substantial question of law • agricultural income • business income • penalty |
| Bot Summary: | C.M. Nos.1788/2015, 3937/2015, 3939/2015, 3940/2015 and 3942/2015 For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. In these five appeals, the revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 09.11.2012 of the ITAT. Though there is a delay it is stated that it was due to delay in re-filing the appeal. The question sought to be urged is with respect to the correctness of the ITATs order deleting the penalty proposed by the assessing officer and upheld by the CIT(Appeals). At the outset, it is pointed out that pursuant to the mutually agreed procedure under the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Convention, read with Rule 44-H of Income Tax Rules, there is a reduction in the quantum of total tax determined by the CIT(Appeals) and upheld by the ITAT in this case. As against the addition made on account of business income and the income arising out of attribution, it is stated that as a result of MAP agreement there is a quantum reduction in regard to the second issue i.e. income arising from attribution of PE. 4. Apart from the above development, the Court notices that the finding with respect to the closure of the penalty proceedings recorded by the AO in the order sheet is a factual one based on the appreciation of the record. In the above circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. |