Case Law Details
M/s Inspectorate Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi)
Assessee was under the belief that due to the ‘make available’ Clause in Article 12 (4) (b) of India Singapore DTAA, the consideration paid by the Indian customers to assessee cannot be regarded as ‘fees for technical services’ and further since there was no transfer of technology involved in the services extended by assessee, the consideration for such services could not be taxed under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. Assessee relied upon various decisions of Jurisdictional High Court as well as Authority of Advance Ruling in the case of CIT vs De Bears India Minerals Pvt.Ltd., reported in 346 ITR 467 and Perfetti van Melle in Holding BV AAR 869 of 2010. Thus two legal interpretations were possible and there was genuine and credible plea of not imposing penalty for concealment. In the facts of the present case assessee had offered explanation and the submissions as to why receipts were not offered to tax for the year under consideration, by relying on the legal position. Thus assessee had acted in a bona fides manner and had also furnished all material facts and particulars in respect of the same. Thus penalty for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be imposed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 30/06/16 passed by Ld.CIT (A)-43 for Assessment Year 2010-1 1 on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
