9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is settled position of law that under Section 260-A of the Act, the High Court could entertain the appeal or appeals only if it involves substantial question/s of law. In the instant case, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the case, the question raised by the Revenue is not a substantial question of law and it is a question of fact. Moreover, the Revenue had not filed appeal before the Tribunal with regard to colorable device or the genuineness of transaction or on allowance of loss in a sum of Rs. 11,27,00,000/-. But, the Revenue s appeal was in respect of other disallowances allowed by the Assessing Authority. The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue would not emanate from the order of the Tribunal, but from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he substantial question of law which remain for consideration is as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance of short term loss of Rs.11,27,2000 claimed by assessee in P L A/c by holding that the shares have acquired by assessee under normal business transaction and can be taken as stock-in-trade even when assessing authority has proved that the assessee has adopted colorable device to reduce the tax liability by booking business of 11.27 crore and assessee had intentionally shown shares of M/s. Asianet Communication as an inventory in its books to claim loss as business loss, the assessee had failed to give any reason for conversion of loan to the exorbit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .I., submits that as held by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 11,27,00,000/- shown as loss is not a business loss and it is not a genuine transaction and the same is colorable one, which the Tribunal failed to appreciate. Learned counsel would submit that on 26.10.2006, M/s. Asianet TV Holdings (P) Ltd., paid Rs. 6 Crores to M/s. Fedex Securities Ltd. Further, on 03.11.2006, it paid a sum of Rs. 6.5 Crores to M/s. Fedex Securities Ltd. Thereafter, on 03.09.2007, M/s. Asianet TV Holdings (P) Ltd., requested M/s. Fedex Securities Ltd., to treat the amounts paid to it as share application money and to allot the shares to assessee company. Accordingly, M/s. Fedex Securities Ltd., allotted 2.30 Lakh shares of face value of Rs. 10/- each at a premium o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law that under Section 260-A of the Act, the High Court could entertain the appeal or appeals only if it involves substantial question/s of law. In the instant case, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the case, the question raised by the Revenue is not a substantial question of law and it is a question of fact. Moreover, the Revenue had not filed appeal before the Tribunal with regard to colorable device or the genuineness of transaction or on allowance of loss in a sum of Rs. 11,27,00,000/-. But, the Revenue s appeal was in respect of other disallowances allowed by the Assessing Authority. 10. The Tribunal at paragraphs 7 and 8 of its order has rightly held as follows: 7. From the above Para of the order of Id. CIT (A), we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
