2018 (10) TMI 1266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and is a tax resident of United States of America. The Appellant is engaged, inter alia, in the business of off-shore supply of parts and related off-shore repair services required for maintenance of power plants at its facility located outside India, the consideration for which was received by the Appellant outside India. A survey was conducted on the Appellant under 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') for the assessment year ('AY') under consideration and consequently, a notice dated 27.03.2008 was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the Appellant filed its return of income under section 148 of Act declaring 'Nil' income since the income earned by the Appellant was not taxable in India under the provisions of both, the Act as well ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of Fixed Place PE and Agency PE in India were upheld. However, the attribution of income to PE was reduced from 3.5% to 2.6% of sales. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in the instant case, all additions made to the income of the Appellant by the AO stem from the primary finding of the AO that the Appellant has fixed place and agency Permanent Establishment in India. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) and this Hon'ble Tribunal have also concurred with these findings of the AO. The Appellant, aggrieved by the findings of this Hon'ble Tribunal, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court bearing ITA No. 621 of 2017 which was admitted vide order dated 15.01.2018. The aforesaid appeal was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore us. We find that the appeals were admitted as this Court found that there were debatable and arguable questions raised in the quantum proceedings. This being the case, we find that the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was fully justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A) in all the three assessment years for deleting the penalty as far point Nos. 1 and 2 (reproduced above) are concerned. " 2.2 It was further submitted that the Main Appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being ITA No. 6403/Del/2018 was filed on 05.10.2018 before the Tribunal, which is not fixed for hearing as yet. In view of above, Assessee's counsel prayed that the penalty demand of Rs. 24,93,590/- may kindly be stayed till the m....