9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with subsection (8) thereof HELD THAT:- We find no merit in Revenue s arguments placing reliance on M/s. Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. [ 2024 (1) TMI 701 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] once the issue before their lordships was that of the concerned appellant seeking to frame an additional substantial question of law in section 260A proceedings whereas the law regarding the tribunal s jurisdiction to entertain suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] in section 271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. - Shri R.K. Panda, Vice President And Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Girish Ladda For the Department : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee s appeal for assessment year 2020-21 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi s order dated 27.11.2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quence to misreporting. 3. Learned DR vehemently argued that the instant issue is no more res-integra in light of the hon ble jurisdictional high court recent decision in M/s. Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay) rejecting a similar plea in section 260A proceedings. Mr. Murkunde further sought to buttress the point that the learned lower authorities have duly consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that of the concerned appellant seeking to frame an additional substantial question of law in section 260A proceedings whereas the law regarding the tribunal s jurisdiction to entertain such a pure question of law, not requiring any further detailed investigation on facts, is already settled in NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). That being the case, we are of the considered view that going ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
