9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Mr. Manish Kanth i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani. P.C:- Following substantial questions of law are proposed:- (a) Whether in law and in given facts and circumstances of the case, retention of 49 percent saleable area in the property by the developer represents transfer of stock in trade u/s. 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, capital gains on transfer of stock in trade b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers only decides in what manner the consideration will be received by the assessee towards the transfer of stock in trade and not the fact that transfer of stock has taken place or not? 2. In this case, Respondent-Assessee had appealed against order dated 22nd March 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai (Principal CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 263 of the Act. The scope of revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Act has been dealt by this Court in Grasim Industries Ltd., v/s. CIT (321 ITR 92). In Grasim Industries (supra), the Court held that where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT held that the Principal CIT has failed to show that the Assessment Order was erroneous, causing prejudice to the Revenue. This finding of the ITAT that the Principal CIT could not have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act has not been even challenged. Since that has not been challenged, we do not think it permissible to go into the merits of the case as decided by the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
