9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tock in trade” and since it was less than three years, the gain was treated as short term capital gain - Held that assessee has clearly furnished inaccurate particulars of income - Decided in favour of Revenue - ITA No.1977 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 14-1-2011 - A.K. SIKRI INDERMEET KAUR JJ. A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. This appeal was admitted on 9th December, 2010 on the following question of law:- 1 .Whether the treatment given by the assessee company to the short terms capital asset as a long term capital asset is not a colorable device used by the assessee company to pay lower rate of tax on the gain accruing from the sale of immovable property under the garb of Long Terms Capital Gain which was actually the short terms capital gain at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st March, 2002 was reflected at Rs. 3,46,63,069/-. In the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2003 filed with the return of, no stock in trade was declared. The assessee company claimed that during the financial year under consideration it had converted its stock in trade comprising of the impugned land into investment and sold the same on 12th December, 2002 to another company i.e. M/s Premier Tyers Ltd. for Rs. 6,00,00,000/-. The difference of sale consideration and the cost of purchase which came to Rs. 2,53,36,931/- was declared as long term gains. The income from long term gain was declared at Rs. 1,66,09,750/- after claiming benefit of indexed cost of acquisition. The period of holding the asset was reckoned from the date when it was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue. According to the Tribunal it became debatable issue because of the reason that against the order passed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal, substantial question of law was admitted by this Court in appeal preferred by the assessee i.e. ITA 662/2009. As the substantial question of law arose it could not be treated as frivolous or mala fide to attract the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we cannot agree with the approach adopted by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has side tracked the main issue. It was a case where the land in question was purchased in the financial year 1998-99. Thereafter, it was shown in the balance sheet as stock in tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
