2016 (1) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... so agreed to the claim of the assessee. This fact itself shows that the issue was debatable. As all the particulars of the sale and the non taxability of the capital gains were fully and duly disclosed in the return of income and also during the assessment proceedings. Hence, it was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. - Decided in favour of assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ser data' for a consideration of US$ 6,50,000/-. The assessee disclosed the entire details relating to the above sale of 'user data', in the return of income. The assessee considered the 'user data' as a self generated capital asset and its cost of acquisition was considered as not determinable. The assessee accordingly adopted the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'bl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns on the sale of the said 'user data'. The assessee did not contest the above taxation. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed the impugned penalty on account of concealment of particulars of income. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the levy of the penalty. 4. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X