Levy of concealment penalty post facto MAP proceedings 

Facts :

Assessee a US entity supplied spares, rotary joints and did hardware support to Airport Authority of India wherein it was alleged that they created a Permanent Establishment (PE) and payments emanating from India were held to be royalty taxable in India. The said case of the assessee was referred to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) as per Article 27 of the Indo-US DTAA and the case got concluded in the MAP proceedings amicably between both country tax authorities. Bereft of this, MAP proceedings revenue alleged that there was concealment of income by the assessee and sought to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). Assessee's plea was that there was no concealment in the first place, secondly as the case has been decided under MAP no penalty was thereafter not sustainable as the grounds of levy of penalty by revenue was also not applicable on facts. CIT(A) went with the assessee. On higher appeal by revenue -

Held in favour of the assessee that no penalty was sustainable in their case post facto MAP proceedings as there was no concealment by them in the first place.

Case : DCIT v. Raytheon Co. & Anr. 2023 TaxPub(DT) 5268 (Del-Trib)