2015 (8) TMI 1212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of manufacturing of control gear and switch gear products. It filed its return of income for the relevant AY 2004-05 on 30th November 2004, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,88,72,503. The return was processed on 28th February 2006 under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case of the Assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and a notice was issued under Section 148 on 28th February 2008. 3. During the course of re-assessment, the Assessment Officer ('AO') noted that the Respondent had in its computation of income (furnished along with return of income) shown a sum of Rs. 12,12,18,990 as capital gain, treating the cost of acquisition as nil. It was also noted that the Respondent had invested the said sum in capita....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... head 'profit and gains of business or profession' under Section 28 (va) (a) of the Act. The above addition was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] by order dated 14th February 2009. The matter was carried by the Assessee in appeal to the ITAT which also confirmed the order of the CIT (A). It is stated that against the said order of the ITAT, the Assessee has filed an appeal being ITA No. 25 of 2013 in which this Court has by order dated 8th October 2013 framed a question of law. 6. In the meanwhile, the AO imposed a penalty on the Assessee under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act by order dated 21st March 2011 on the ground that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of its cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(A) came to the conclusion that "very basis of taking the impugned amount of compensation as 'business income' of the appellant company was debatable". The order of the CIT (A) was affirmed by the ITAT by the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 8. Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, maintained that this was a case of the Assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars and in view of the decisions in MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC), CIT Delhi v. Zoom Communication 327 ITR 510 (Del) and CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del) it must be held that the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act stand attracted. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent Assessee on the other hand subm....