9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL) This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.07.2016 upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 14.02.2014. The matter pertains to the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. The following questions of law have been raised:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the CIT(A) himself had held that the assessee had not been able to substantiate the source of investment of Rs. 11,00,000/- in the said shares purchased during the financial year 2005-06 and the AO was directed to reopen the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 on this issue? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in ignoring an important aspect that in such cases of sham tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised in this appeal are covered against the appellant by an order and judgement of a Division Bench of this Court dated 16.02.2017 in ITA-18-2017 titled as The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs Sh. Hitesh Gandhi, Bhatti Colony, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahar. 4. The issue in short is this: The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-2007 at Rs. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for instance that this was a closely held company and that the trading on the National Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner. 5. In these circumstances, following the judgement in ITA-18-2017, it must be held that there is no substantial question of law in the present appeal. 6. Question (iv) has been dealt with in detail by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Firstly, the documents on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
