9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following question for our consideration:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in holding the Commissioner's order u/s. 263 as bad in law without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had allowed the assessee's claim of deduction on account of premium paid on buyback of shares by merely assuming the facts, without applying his mind and without making enquiries which prudence warranted and, therefore, the Commissioner was justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263?" 3. During the Assessment Year 2006-07, RespondentAssessee had debited a sum of Rs. 3.45 Crores to its profit and loss account. This being expenditure incurred towards buyback of shares. The Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore it stands covered by its own decisions in Echjay Industries Ltd v/s. DCIT 88 TTJ 1089 and in Chemosyn Ltd. v/s. ACIT rendered on 7th September, 2012 . Where on an identical facts, the Tribunal held that the amount paid by the Company to one of the warring group of share holders to buyback and cancel the shares was in the nature of Revenue expenses. Therefore, the impugned order took a view that the decision taken by the Assessing Officer could not be said to be erroneous for the purpose of exercising powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act. 6. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal in Echjay Industries (supra), was challenged before this Court. However, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th September, 2012 arising on an identical facts. The Revenue carried the above order dated 7th September, 2012 before this Court, being Income Tax Appeal No. 361 of 2013 (CIT v/s. M/s. Chemosyn Ltd.) . This Court by order dated 11th February, 2015 dismissed the Revenue's appeal from an order dated 7th September, 2012 of the Tribunal. This Court by an order dated 11th February, 2015 dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that expenditure so incurred by the Respondent-Assessee for purchase of shares and subsequent cancellation thereof was only for the purpose of enabling smooth running of its business. It was further held that the aforesaid finding is essentially a finding of fact and the Revenue was not able to show that the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
