TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal gains or short term gains was not very clear at the time when the assessee filed his return for the assessment year 2002-03. In fact the view taken by the AO in the quantum proceedings had been reversed by the CIT (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the assessee. The view taken by the CIT(Appeals) was ultimately reversed by the Tribunal and the view of the assessing officer was upheld in the quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut of the penalty order passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act on 24.06.2010. 2. The facts are that the respondent/ assessee was employed with M/s Cadence Design Systems India Pvt. Ltd. and as a part of his employment he received stock options by virtue of an agreement dated 17.09.1992 with Cadence Designs System, USA. During the year in question the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of stock options were to be considered. The Tribunal reversed the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and held that the said gains were short term capital gains as held by the assessing officer. 4. In the penalty proceedings the assessing officer imposed a penalty of ₹ 15,69,445/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the said penalty on the ground tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petro Product Pvt. Ltd., we uphold the order of learned CIT(A). 3. We are of the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal have approached the issue correctly. The question whether the sale of the stock options would result in long term capital gains or short term gains was not very clear at the time when the respondent/ assessee filed his return for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
