Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
The crux pertains to levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income regarding capital gains computation on sale of land. The Tribunal held that adopting a different valuation for determining cost of acquisition based on estimation cannot be the basis for imposing penalty. The capital gains were computed by the assessee based on estimated cost as on 1.4.1981, which the Assessing Officer disagreed with and adopted the fair market value mentioned in the sale deed dated 17.11.1980 without referring to the District Valuation Officer. This recomputation based on material furnished by the assessee cannot attract penalty. Mere difference in estimation of cost by the authorities does not prove concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer failed to establish willful negligence, concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Penalty cannot be levied for estimated additions unless the factum of concealment or inaccurate particulars is proved. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, holding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as not imposable.
The crux pertains to levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income regarding capital gains computation on sale of land. The Tribunal held that adopting a different valuation for determining cost of acquisition based on estimation cannot be the basis for imposing penalty. The capital gains were computed by the assessee based on estimated cost as on 1.4.1981, which the Assessing Officer disagreed with and adopted the fair market value mentioned in the sale deed dated 17.11.1980 without referring to the District Valuation Officer. This recomputation based on material furnished by the assessee cannot attract penalty. Mere difference in estimation of cost by the authorities does not prove concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer failed to establish willful negligence, concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Penalty cannot be levied for estimated additions unless the factum of concealment or inaccurate particulars is proved. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, holding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as not imposable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
