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)
Delhi HC holds 10% pre-deposit requirement for penalty-only appeals inapplicable where SCN was issued before amendment
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi High Court (HC) [1] on whether the newly introduced pre-deposit requirement for fi...
-
ITC is blocked on motor vehicles having seating capacity ≤ 13 persons (including the driver) used for the transportation of persons. Furth...
-
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...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court (HC)on imposition of penalty on directors of a company under the Ce...
-
Recently, in a significant taxpayer-friendly ruling, the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT, in the case of Nikesh Bhagwandas Mehta vs. ITO , has clarifi...
-
Section 68 -Cash credits Section 69 -Unexplained investments Section 69A - Unexplained money, etc Section 69B -Amount of investme...
-
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when an expenditure is claimed to have been incurred by an assessee for promotion of his busine...
-
Income Tax Department had clarify that the renting of mobile tower would attract lower TDS Deductions u/s. 194-I and not u/s...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarifying the manner of gra...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Kerala High Court (HC) 1 upholding the validity of GST notifications 2 extending the t...
No comments:
Post a Comment