https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35271 Concurrent factual findings on the assessee's share-sale rate were upheld because the Tribunal and CIT(A) had accepted the market quotation evidence and found no brokerage payment. The High Court held that the dispute turned on appreciation of evidence and factual inference, not on any legal principle or statutory interpretation. As no legal infirmity was shown in the concurrent findings, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35271 Concurrent factual findings on the assessee's share-sale rate were upheld because the Tribunal and CIT(A) had accepted the market quotation evidence and found no brokerage payment. The High Court held that the dispute turned on appreciation of evidence and factual inference, not on any legal principle or statutory interpretation. As no legal infirmity was shown in the concurrent findings, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35271