2014 (7) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Y.) 1998-99 vide order dated 28.11.2005. 2. Though the Revenue's appeal raises as many as five grounds, it in effect raises a single issue, i.e., whether there has been any understatement of income by the assessee in respect of certificate of deposits held by it and, if so, at what amount, having been worked out by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) at Rs. 1,84,43,633/-. 3. The background facts leading to the controversy involved in the present case is that the assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of India engaged in the business of banking and investment activity, deposited a sum of Rs. 31.02 crores with the Custodian as per the directions of the Special Court (Trial of offences relating to transactions in securities) Act, 1992. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of income, and stood allowed relief by the ld. CIT(A) on that basis. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The controversy in the instant case arose, as we see it, from Note 4 of the 'Notes to the Accounts' to the assessee's final accounts for the years ending 31.03.1997 and 31.03.1998, which reads as under: 'Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. (FFSL): In the matter of FFSL, the Supreme Court in civil appeal no. 1753/94 vide judgment dated 19/3/97 have upheld the contention of the company and have dismissed the application filed by the Custodian and the notified persons, for the return of securities. Pursuant to aforesaid judgment the company got back bonds worth Rs....