Income Tax

Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

By TG Team Income Tax Judiciary July 3, 2011

TaxGuru Citation: 2011 taxguru.in 612
Case Name: ADIT Vs Fidelity Management Trust Co (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year: 2004-05
Courts: ITAT Mumbai

Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

ADIT v Fidelity Management Trust Co

ITAT BENCH ‘L’, MUMBAI

ITA Nos. 1617 to 1620 (MUM.) of 2010

Assessment Year: 2004-05

Decided on: 29 April 2011

Order

N.V. Vasudevan, JM

These are appeals by the revenue against four orders all dated 23-12-2009 of CIT(A) X, Mumbai relating to assessment year 2004-05. In these appeals the revenue has challenged the orders of the CIT(A), whereby the CIT(A) has cancelled the order of the AO imposing penalty on the

assessees’ under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act).

2. The facts and circumstances under which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed by the AO on the assessees’ are as follows. All the assessees’ above named are Nonresidents and are Funds registered as Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) with Securities and

Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The assessees’ in all these cases filed returns of income wherein they declared the gain/loss arising on sale of securities in India under the head “capital gain”. All the assessees’ filed a revised return of income reporting nil income and claiming refund of the taxes paid. The details in this regard are as follows:

Appeal No.

1617/M/10

1618/M/10

1619/M/10

1620/M/10

Name of Fund

Fidelity GroupTrust for