2013 (1) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the record reveals that the amount in question, which formed the basis for the assessing officer to levy penalty was in fact truthfully reported in the returns. In view of this circumstance, that the assessing officer chose to treat the income under some other head cannot charact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ether the Tribunal fell into error in directing deletion of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 2. The assessee declared an income of Rs. 2,60,73,558/- from short term capital gains. The assessing officer on an interpretation of the relevant provisions and having regard to the nature of transactions assessed it as income from business. He also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) to the tune .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facts. The Court is also conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) where it was held that it is up to the assessing officer to interpret the return and discern as to which head of income the amount had to be brought to tax. In view of the above circumstance, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X