2015 (6) TMI 1129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue relied on certain decisions in the appeal. Prima facie, the grounds raised in the appeal are argumentative in nature. 3. The relevant facts of the issue under consideration include that the assessee received 1 million Euros for forgoing the right to sue/initiate legal proceedings for breach of pre-emptive right to purchase shares held by M/s Vendior NV through Vedior Asia AV in M/s MaFoi. During the assessment proceedings, there was dispute between the assessee and the Assessing Officer about the nature of the said receipt equivalent of Rs. 3,82,40,000/-. The Revenue is of the opinion that the said receipt constitutes revenue receipt against the assessee's claim that it falls in capital zone. The Assessing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sel for the assessee made various submissions. Some of them include that the nature of receipt of Rs. 3,82,40,000/- is a debatable one. There is no clear cut findings/judicial precedent about the nature of that receipt and it falls in revenue field. In such circumstances, levying penalty is not valid. He also mentioned that the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the appeal of the assessee, and therefore, the debatability of the issue under consideration is self-evident. In such circumstances, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not exigible. For this proposition, he relied on various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs M/s Nayan Builders & Developers P. Ltd [2014] 89CHH 187. Other decisions are n....