GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Vs DCIT
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1646/2022 Facts: 1. The assessee, a non-resident entity involved in the business of providing IT and IT support services including software licenses to Indian entities, was classified as transfer of intellectual property, and assessed to tax on the payments received from these entities as royalty in terms of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act read with Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. 2. Consequently, penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 270A. Even though the assessee had availed MAP for AY 2017-2018, paid the demands for AY 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, and filed application for immunity u/s 270AA, the AO rejected the application stating mere payment of demand does not, ipso facto, amount to protection against misreporting as envisaged by section 270A(9). 3. The assessee maintained that non-payment of tax was due to uncertainty in legal position existing at the time of filing the return of income and so penalty proceedings be dropped. Hon Delhi HC held as below: 1. The non-payment of tax by assessee due to uncertainty in legal position existing at the time of filing the return of income, would be outside the scope of 'mis-reporting'. 2. Show Cause Notice which came to be issued for commencement of action u/s 270A were themselves vague and unclear, as it failed to specify whether the assessee was being charged with under-reporting or misreporting of income. 3. While examining an application for immunity, it was incumbent upon the AO to ascertain whether the provisions of Section 270A stood attracted either on the anvil of under-reporting or misreporting. 4. A finding of misrepresentation, failure to record investments, expenditure not substantiated by evidence, recording of false entry in the books of account alluded to u/s 270A(9) has neither been returned nor recorded in the assessment order. 5. The penalty proceedings u/s 270A be dropped, due to AO's failure to allude to specific charge of misreporting or under-reporting in show cause notice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
GST Not Leviable on Transfer of Leasehold Rights of MIDC Plots: SC Dismisses Revenue’s SLP
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Bombay High Court (...
-
· Legal Framework: Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides the legal framework for the partition of a Hindu Undivided...
-
New utility for generation of Form 16A in pdf format provided by https://www.tdscpc.gov.in is very light and is sized only 8.43 MB while ...
-
1. Introduction Cross-border investment structures often employ intermediate holding companies in jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands. A c...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Issue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Whether the phrase “paid up capital and general reserves” should be defined as “Ne...
-
Introduction Employee welfare is a cornerstone of corporate responsibility, and gratuity forms a critical part of the social security benefi...
-
Facts Saptarshi Ghosh (the tax payer) was a salaried employee of TCS Limited (employer), an Indian company. He was on deputation to the U...
-
Selling a property can trigger a significant tax liability in the form of capital gains tax. However, the Income-tax Act, 1961, allows you...
-
In the complex landscape of India’s Goods and Services Tax (GST), the tax treatment of non-compete fees has emerged as a critical area f...
-
The newly enacted Income Tax Act, 2025, marks a significant step toward simplification by consolidating multiple presumptive taxation sche...
No comments:
Post a Comment