9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, New Delhi Bench "B" in I. T. A. No. 1371/Del/2005 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee had purchased some units of mutual funds which were cum dividend. The units were sold within two or three days of purchase but after receiving the dividend. The dividend received by the assessee was about Rs. 3.72 crores and the units were sold at a loss of about Rs. 4.45 crores. The loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing to the assessee. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which allowed the appeal and that is how the matter is before us under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the respondent to a recent decision rendered by this court in CIT v. Vikram Aditya and Associates P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the amendment made to section 94 of the Act with reference to the assessment year 2002-03. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 the Supreme Court held that if two views are possible on an issue and both the views are reasonable, then the Commissioner ought not to exercise power under section 263 of the Act. We find that in so far as the present case is concerned, only one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 the exercise of power by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act is not warranted, if it is assumed that two views are possible on the issue.
Consequently, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration under section 260A of the Act.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
