On appeal High Court held that there was no dispute about the quantum of receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government, that the assessee had reflected the receipt as a capital receipt, whereas it had been treated as a revenue receipt, that whether the grant-in-aid was a capital or a revenue receipt was a debatable issue, that there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and that therefore, penalty could not be imposed. SLP of Revenue is dismissed.(AY.2003-04)
CIT v. Gurdaspur Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2024)461 ITR 208 /297 Taxman 384 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Gurdaspur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (2013) 354 ITR 27 / 216 Taxman 186 (Mag.) (P&H)(HC)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income- Subsidy-Capital or revenue-Debatable issue-Order of High Court deleting the penalty is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]