2023 (10) TMI 1243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 387 days. 2. Mr Satyen Sethi, counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 518/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 6. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 28.10.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 7. The only issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether or not the penalty order dated 27.09.2018, passed under Section 271AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent/assessee, inasmuch as it was held by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings that the transaction was at arm's length. Thus, the addition concerning the purchase of a tunnel-boring machine was deleted. 11.1 The reason that we have referred to this aspect of the matter as it forms the foundation for triggering penalty proceedings against the respondent/assessee. 12. Furthermore, what is required to be noticed is that the quantum proceedings were fought right up to the Tribunal. 13. In sum, insofar as the addition made vis-à-vis the tunnel-boring machine is concerned, the conclusion drawn was that the transaction was at Arm's Length Price. 14. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, based on the shareholding struc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll the PSUs in India and all nationalized banks will be termed as related parties since the Government of India holds share in these Government undertaking." 21. Besides this, as to whether SPMCECL was a related party is an issue qua which there can possibly be more than one view. The respondent/assessee has taken a stand that the legal advice that it received seems to indicate that it was not a related party. The CIT(A) has done its own analysis of the Chinese Law and concluded that it was a related party to the transaction and hence required disclosure. 22 One can only say that insofar as Chinese Law is concerned, it is a matter of fact which could only be ascertained, at the very least, by having an expert in Chinese Law being prod....