9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted against the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in I. T. A. Nos. 1035 and 1036/Mds/2003, dated July 14, 2006. 2 The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1997-98 and 1998-99. The assessee acquired shares from M/s An Chemicals and claimed the diminution in the value of shares as revenue loss. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee acquired the shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said order of the Commissioner, the Revenue filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which, by its common order dated July 14, 2006, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4 Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred the above appeals raising the following substantial questions of law "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The assessee claimed the diminution in the value of shares as revenue loss. It is seen from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the issue whether it is a business loss or not has already been decided against the assessee in a appeal. But, it is the concurrent finding of both the authorities low that since the issue whether it is a business loss or not has been decided aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to look into all the facts of the given case and decide as to whether the penalty was to be sustained or I set aside, found that both the authorities below had examined all the facts and accepted the claim of the assessee therein that his failure to file the return earlier was bona fide and hence, penalty was not on the facts of that case leviable and thus, upheld the orders of the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
