9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g term capital gain on account of sale of Gobi unit. The assessee has shown the book value of asset and has also shown the written down value required as per the purpose of section 50B. The claim of the assessee was not allowable. There was a bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee for calculating the LTCG. The assessee has filed the revised return of income which has been accepted by the Department. In view of the revised return of income, we nowhere find any concealment of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. See PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA - I [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.2889/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 6,56,70,810/-. The assessee was involved in manufacturing and selling in hosiery, cotton yarn, garment products and related process activities. One of its unit located at Erode known as Gobi Unit which was sold during the year. The sale transaction took place by way of a slump sale. The working of net worth of the unit sold was called for to determine whether the norms of Section 50B was satisfied or not. Accountant certificate was also called for. There was huge difference between the figure adopted in the computation as long term capital gain arising out of the result of the sale of Gobi Unit and the figure showed by CA certificate. The notice was given. The CA certificate shows the LTCG to the tune of ₹ 6,74,89,924/- whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), CIT Vs. Nalin P. Shah (HUF) (2013) 40 taxmann.com 86 (Bom), CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits in ITA No. 1332 of 2011 CIT Vs. Bennett Coleman CO.Ltd. (2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom). It is also argued that the disallowance of claim if any raised before the AO nowhere attract the penalty. In view of the law settled in Reliance Petroproducts (supra). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention and strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Keeping in view of argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record, we noticed that after the sale of the Gobi unit by the assessee, the assessee has shown th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
