Director Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Pioneer Overseas Corporation

$~1 and 13 to 16*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 56/2015 +ITA 167/2015 +ITA 168/2015 +ITA 169/2015 +ITA 170/2015 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan and Mr. RuchirBhatia, Advs. versus M/S PIONEER OVERSEAS CORPORATION Respondent Through Mr. R R Maurya, Mr. Pravesh Sharmaand Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER%03.03.2015 C.M. Nos.1787/2015. 3936/2015. 3938/2015 and 3942/2015 Exemption is allowed subject to all just 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. ITA 56/2015ITA 167/2015ITA 168/2015ITA 169/2015 ITA 170/2015 1. In these five appeals, the revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 09.11.2012 of the ITAT. Though there is a delay it is stated that it was due todelay in re-filing the appeal. 2. The question sought to be urged is with respect to the correctness of theITAT's order deleting the penalty proposed by the assessing officer (AO) andupheld by the CIT(Appeals). 3. At the outset, it is pointed out that pursuant to the mutually agreedprocedure (MAP) under the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Convention,read with Rule 44-H of Income Tax Rules, there is a reduction in the quantumof total tax determined by the CIT(Appeals) - and upheld by the ITAT in thiscase. A copy of the MAP agreement dated 10.09.2012 inter alia for years1997-98 to 2006-07 communicated to the assessee has been produced - whichhas not been disputed by the revenue; the same is hereby taken on record. Asagainst the addition made on account of business income (as opposed toagricultural income claimed by the assessee) and the income arising out ofattribution, it is stated that as a result of MAP agreement there is a quantumreduction 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 findingwith respect to the closure of the penalty proceedings recorded by the AO inthe order sheet is a factual one based on the appreciation of the record. In theabove circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.The appeals are accordingly dismissed. s. rav™ra bhat, j MARCH 03, 2015/vld ^ R.K.GAUBA,J