2015 (1) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... UDGEMENT We have heard Mr. Sureshkumar in support of this Appeal. It challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated 6 June 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.2902/Mum/2011 and Income Tax Appeal No.2904/Mum/2011. The Assessment Year is 2006-07. 2. The order was passed on 8 March 2011 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Thane in exercise of his powers un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icer and he passed an order on 24 December 2008 accepting the long term capital gain as declared by the Assessee in the return of income. 5. These issues were examined by the Commissioner and he concluded that the consideration under the agreement was determined at Rs. 20 crores in terms of clause 3.2 of the agreement between parties. Therefore that sum should have been brought to tax and not an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's view was possible and could not have been interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. Such a finding of fact cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. We do not find any merit in this Appeal, as it raises no substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 8. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X