9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the CIT would have still exercised his powers of Revision under Section 263 of the Act. It is not for any of us to even attempt to hazard a guess, as to the likely view of the CIT on correct facts - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1335 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 30th September, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 30th September, 2013 is in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08. 2 The Revenue urges only the following question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the rebate of STT paid under Section 88E of the Act as claimed by the Respondent-Assessee. Further, on same set of facts, the Respondent-Assessee's claim for rebate under Section 88E of the Act had been allowed by the Revenue in the earlier Assessment Years. Further, the impugned order also notes that the CIT while revising the order of Assessment dated 30th November, 2009 proceeded on an incorrect assumption of fact that the Respondent-Assessee is a share broker. This is contrary to the facts on record as the Respondent-Assessee was doing the work of jobbing through different share brokerage firm. Thus, for the above reasons, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 30th March, 2012 of CIT, passed in exercise h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute the fact that the Assessing Officer while passing the Assessment Order dated 30th November, 2009 had granted the claim of the Petitioner for benefit under Section 88E of the Act on examination and verification of the Contract Notes, Bills of respective brokers etc., Thus, on the basis of the records available and examination by the Assessing Officer, a view has been taken by the Assessing Officer and it is not open to CIT to revise it merely because his view on the same facts, is different, as held by the Apex Court in Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd., v/s. CIT 243 ITR 83. 8 In view of the above, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 9 Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
