9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax (Appeals) on the issue raised in this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether it involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of section 260A ibid ? Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on a perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal in limine as, in our opinion, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out within the meaning of section 260A ibid. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of purchasing and selling shares. The issue relates to disallowance of loss to the extent of Rs. 3,66,808 on account of sale of shares of one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als. There is no fiction in law that sales price is to be determined on the basis of any market value or break up value. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold the transaction is a real transaction and under the circumstances the action of the Assessing Officer is not justified in substituting the sale price by any other price. Accordingly, we hold that the loss disallowed to the extent of Rs. 3,66,804 is not correct and such disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted." Similarly, so far as another transaction relating to disallowance of Rs.7,08,000 was concerned, the same was also probed by the Tribunal on facts and then while reversing the finding of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), held that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 260A ibid in an appeal arising out of such order. In our opinion, therefore, once the Tribunal accepted the explanation of assessee and accordingly, deleted the additions in question made by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), then it would not involve any substantial issue of law as such. In other words, this court in its appellate jurisdiction under section 260A ibid, would not again de novo hold yet another factual inquiry with a view to find out as to whether the explanation offered by assessee and which found acceptance to the Tribunal is good or bad, or whether it was rightly accepted, or not. It is only when the factual finding recorded had been entirely de hors the subject, or that it had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
