Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune Versus M/s. V-Raj Enterprises

2017 (2) TMI 476 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Jurisdiction - Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income TaxIII, Pune has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 263? - Held that: - the entire basis of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is on the basis of assumption of incorrect fact that the Respondent-Assessee is a share broker. This, in fact, is not so. Where the basic facts have been misunderstood by the CIT, the exercise o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Singh, for the Appellant ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 30th September, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 30th September, 2013 is in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08. 2 The Revenue urges only the following question of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

[CIT] in exercise of its powers under Section 263 of the Act, by order dated 30th March, 2012 revised the Assessment Order dated 30th November, 2009. The order dated 30th March, 2012 of the CIT held that the Respondent-Assessee was not entitled to rebate under Section 88E of the Act in respect of STT (Security Transaction Tax) paid as it was a share broker. Moreover, it holds that this aspect was not examined by the Assessing Officer while passing the Assessment Order dated 30th November, 2009. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aim for rebate under Section 88E of the Act had been allowed by the Revenue in the earlier Assessment Years. Further, the impugned order also notes that the CIT while revising the order of Assessment dated 30th November, 2009 proceeded on an incorrect assumption of fact that the Respondent-Assessee is a share broker. This is contrary to the facts on record as the Respondent-Assessee was doing the work of jobbing through different share brokerage firm. Thus, for the above reasons, the Tribunal al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version