2014 (7) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T:- This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 31st October 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.376/Mum/2011. The Assessment Year in question is 2006-2007. 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of the Revenue would submit that this Appeal raises substantial question of law. According to him, they are squarely arising for consideration and determinat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the difference between market value and its issue price in respect of shares allotted to employees as ESOP, ignoring that the Income Tax Act does not allow deduction of such notional loss?" 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar would not dispute the basic facts. They were that the assessment in relation to assessee bank was completed on 15.12.2008. A total income was determined. On examination and scrutiny, it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade an order under Section 263 of the Act dated 4th March 2011. 4. Aggrieved by such an order, the assessee filed Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that above formulated questions of law are substantial inasmuch as the Assessing Officer blindly and without verification and scrutiny accepted the version of the assessee. No independent enquiry or find....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... I. Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) reported in 1985 TTJ 1049. Thus, this was not a blind acceptance of the version of the assessee, as is now termed. The findings of fact is that the Assessing Officer referred to the material placed before him and followed the view taken by the Tribunal at Chennai in the case of S. S. I. Ltd. (supra). Such an order may be erroneous, according to ....