2018 (6) TMI 147 - ITAT MUMBAI

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - deemed rental value when treatment of the addition in assessment order was confirmed by himself as concealed income - Bonafide belief -Held that:- On the basis of conflicting views of two benches of the Tribunal on the issue under consideration, it could safely be concluded that as the issue under consideration was not free from doubts and debates, thus the assessee could not be subjected to levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for adopting one of such view

As the claim raised by the assessee was clearly backed by a bonafide belief on his part, that the notional income of the villa was not liable to be taxed in India, therefore, on the said count too no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have been validly imposed on the assessee - No penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act could have been imposed on the assessee in respect of the addition of an amount made by the A.O towards notional income of the villa owned by the assessee at Dubai. The order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) is upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee

Addition made towards Long Term Capital Gain on sale of structured product, viz. 0% debentures - Held that:- Raising of an incorrect claim in law cannot be construed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As it remains an admitted position that no information given by the assessee in its return of income in respect of either the amount of sale proceeds or the cost of acquisition of the structured product, viz. 0% debentures of Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, therefore, the wrong computation of the LTCG can by no means be characterised as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. We find that our aforesaid view that where no information given in the return of income was found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars, for the reason that he had on the basis of said facts made an incorrect claim in law, is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee