9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THE APPELLANT : MR SN SOPARKAR, LD. SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, LD. SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL WITH MR. CHINTAN DAVE, JR. STANDING COUNSEL JUDGEMENT Per: K S Jhaveri: 1. By way of this Appeal, the appellant - original assessee having lost before all the authorities has approached this Hon'ble Court against the judgment and order of the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeal) and the order of the Tribunal. 2. While admitting the matter on 07.10.2003, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:- [1] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the action of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y allowed the said Appeal. Against this order, the appellant preferred a Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) of the Act, for there were certain apparent mistakes in the impugned order of ITAT. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the ITAT, the appellant begs to challenge the said order by way of the present Appeal. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that all the authorities have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that merely because entries are not made in the account of Prashant Sarawgi, the same is required to be refused. 5. Learned Senior Counsel S.N. Soparkar has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, as the positivist jurists Bentham and Austin pointed out. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel contended that all the authorities have committed an error as the loss was not a specific loss of business but a business loss, which is required the appellant is duty bound as a Stock Broker. 7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt with learned Junior Standing Counsel Mr. Chintan Dave contended that the view taken by the authority is just and proper. Both of the Counsels have taken us to the order of the Assessing Officer and contended that at least the amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- which stands in the name of client ought to have been given as a set off against the loss. 8. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
