TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me nor concealment of particulars of income, the Tribunal rightly did not sustain the penalty orders. Tax appeal is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 360 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI, AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr Km Parikh, Advocate ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1 This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.10.2016. Following question is presented for our consideration: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the I.T.A.T is justified in not upholding the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he computation of income. In note 4 of the computation, the assessee had given detailed reasons for claiming such exemption. In the Annual Report attached to the return, the assessee had made further following disclosures: [a] Director s report on page 10 of the annual report under the head subsidiaries mentions about GIPTPL being a wholly owned subsidiary as well as about the sale of technical knowhow to GIPTPL for ₹ 2.60 crores. [b] The schedule A of other income reflected in the profit and loss account for the year under reference discloses the aforesaid transfer of intellectual properties and amount thereof of ₹ 2.60 crores as a separate line item. [c] The schedule L of notes to accounts and signific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expertise and knowhow in the business relating to eographic Information System (GIS) to it s wholly owned subsidiary viz. Global IP Technology Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office in New Delhi at consideration of ₹ 2,60,00,000/pursuant to the Memorandum of Undertaking executed on March 26,2003 between both the parties. The company claims (that it is not liable to any capital gains tax in view of decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. B.C.Srinivasan Setty ((1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC)). 5 It can thus be seen that, as a matter of fact, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had made a claim making full disclosures and in a transpare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
