TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - D.DINAKARAN and MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN JJ. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 10.3.2006 made in ITA No.1826/Mds/1999 for the assessment year 1995-96, raising the following common substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not considering the fact that for the present assessment year 1995-96 alone, the assessee had valued the shares at market price whereas he had been adopting the cost price for the earlier assessment years, which was not the regular established rule of commercial practice and accountancy?" 2. The Revenue is the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the questions of law referred to above. 3. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, fairly concedes that the issues raised in this appeal have been squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in Sakthi Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2001] 250 ITR 87 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
