https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442593 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable because the assessee had disclosed all primary facts and the additions arose from a bona fide, debatable dispute on taxability and treaty characterisation. The controversy concerned whether receipts were taxable in India under MAP proceedings, including the existence of a permanent establishment, the nature of royalty income, and whether software maintenance services were ancillary to software supply. The adjustments were based on an assumed permanent establishment and no independent finding of concealment or inaccurate particulars was shown. On that basis, the penalty deletion was sustained and the Revenue's appeals failed. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Sep 2023 08:41:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442593 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable because the assessee had disclosed all primary facts and the additions arose from a bona fide, debatable dispute on taxability and treaty characterisation. The controversy concerned whether receipts were taxable in India under MAP proceedings, including the existence of a permanent establishment, the nature of royalty income, and whether software maintenance services were ancillary to software supply. The adjustments were based on an assumed permanent establishment and no independent finding of concealment or inaccurate particulars was shown. On that basis, the penalty deletion was sustained and the Revenue's appeals failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442593