2015 (6) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....law and marked "X" are the questions projected before us. 2. Mr. Gupta, appearing for the revenue submits that the substantial questions of law arise out of ground Nos.2,3 and 4 formulated at page 49 of the paper-book by the Tribunal and answered in para 6, page 50 of the order. 5. Grounds no.2,3 and 4, read as follows:- 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the protective addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the demutualization Scheme of the Bombay Stock Exchange. 3. The learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred in failing to consider that no opportunity whatsoever was granted by the Assessing Officer before making the said protective addition. The said addition is in g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ck as in 2006-07, it would not be open for the revenue to question the depreciation or the allowance for the same and as claimed then. It is that apprehension which distinguishes this case from that of the other order passed by us viz. in Income tax Appeal No.800 of 2012, decided on 19th September, 2014. 4. Mr. Pardiwala, learned senior counsel appearing for the assess, on the other hand, invites our attention to the statement of fact in para 7.5 of the memo of appeal at page 9 and urges that the issue raised in this appeal is similar to the one dealt with by us viz. Walfort Shares and Stock Broking Private Limited. Therefore, the order passed on 19th September, 2014 would cover the case and the appeal be dismissed. 5. It is only beca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l to the original cost of acquisition of the card whereas the cost of acquisition of trading rights was deemed to be nil. The protective addition was made of Rs. 2,27,50,000/- on the issue of BSE membership card and A.O. held that the original cost of card is allotted on computing capital gain of sale of card. 7. If this is how the A.O. proceeds and the revenue does not dispute it, then, the conceded position is that the card has not been transferred in the year under consideration. That it would be or it may be transferred in future is the assumption on which the A.O. and the Commissioner have proceeded. The Tribunal has held that if what has been transpired in the year under consideration viz. the assessment year in question is the acq....