Full Text
ITA 56/2015
DIRECTOR OFINCOME TAX-II Appellant
Through Mr. Rohit Madan and Mr. Ruchir Bhatia,Advs.
Through Mr.R R Maurya, Mr.Pravesh Sharma and Mr.Sanjay Kumar,Advs.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
03.03.2015 C.M.Nos.1787/2015.3936/2015.3938/2015 and 3942/2015
Exemption is allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
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.
The applications are disposed of.
ORDER
1. In these five appeals, the revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 2015:DHC:11057-DB 09.11.2012 ofthe ITAT. Though there is a delay it is stated that it was due to delay in re-filing the appeal.
2. The question sought to be urged is with respect to the correctness ofthe ITAT's order deleting the penalty proposed by the assessing officer(AO)and upheld by the CIT(Appeals).
3. At the outset, it is pointed out that pursuant to the mutually agreed procedure(MAP)under the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Convention, read with Rule 44-H ofIncome Tax Rules,there is a reduction in the quantum oftotal tax determined by the CIT(Appeals)-and upheld by the ITAT in this case. A copy of the MAP agreement dated 10.09.2012 inter alia for years 1997-98 to 2006-07 communicated to the assessee has been produced-which has not been disputed by the revenue;the same is hereby taken on record. As against the addition made on account of business income (as opposed to agricultural income claimed by the assessee) 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 ofthe penalty proceedings recorded by the AO in the order sheet is a factual one based on the appreciation ofthe record. In the above circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. s.rav™ra bhat,j ^ R.K.GAUBA,J