TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RDER Per R. K. Panda, AM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 02.03.2015 of the CIT(A)- 42, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2006-07. 2. Deletion of penalty of Rs. 23,90,093/- by the ld. CIT(A) which was levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is the only issue raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. 3. Ld. counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on 29.12.2008 at an income of Rs. 2,944,673,964/-. The additions were made on account of profits attributable to PE Rs. 2,844,567,544/-, Software (Taxable @ 15%) Rs. 6,817,878/- and IPLC Charges (Taxable @ 10%) Rs. 53,282,192/-. 5. The Tribunal decided the assessee's appeal vide order dated 10.05.2013 in ITA No.1443/Del/2012 and ITA No.1376/Del/2012 in which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee had a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in terms of Article 5(1) of the Indo US Tax Treaty? (10) Whether, in view of the nature of transaction which was procuring of computer software (IT enabled services) within the meaning of Section 10A of the Act from its Indian Subsidiary for the purposes of export,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2015." 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. vide ITA No.240/2009 dated 05.10.2010, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that when substantial question of law is admitted by the Hon'ble High Court, the issue becomes debatable and, therefore, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviab....