AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to as `the Tribunal') in ITA No. 592/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the appellant. Perused the record. 3. At the outset, the brief facts of the case are as under: * In the case of the assessee, information was received from the DDIT (Inv), Unit 6(2), Mumbai that the assessee had entered into trading of penny stock of M/s. Aarya Global Shares & Securities Ltd. (BSE Code: 531731 - earlier known as Kuvam International Fashions Ltd.) and also of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. It is the case of the revenue that the assessee traded for Rs. 22,90,701/- in the trading of shares of M/s. Aarya Global Shares & Securities Ltd. and traded for Rs. 56,63,864/- in the shares of Vax Housing Fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company ? 5. The learned advocate for the appellant has taken us through the decision of the AO, the decision rendered by the CIT (Appeals) as well as the decision rendered by the learned tribunal. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant as well as gone through the decisions rendered by the learned tribunal. 7. It is observed by the learned tribunal that the controversy arose whether the assessee genuinely purchased and sold the shares of the above referred two companies through stock exchange. The learned tribunal has further observed that the AO has simply proceeded on the basis of financials of the company in arriving at the conclusion that the transactions were accommodation entries and hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 165 of 2021 rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara - 3 v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Limited. Relevant portion i.e. paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder: "7. In view of the above, the issue having already been duly considered by the ITAT following the decision of the Full bench of this Court, the Court is of the opinion that the question proposed by the appellant in the present Appeal could not be said to be substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A of the said Act. It may be noted that the Appeal under Section 260A could be admitted only on the High Court being satisfied that the case involves a substantial ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ury Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR (1962) SC 1314, this court laid down the following tests to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved. The tests are: (1) whether directly or indirectly it affects substantial rights of the parties, or (2) the question is of general public importance, or (3) whether it is an open question in the sense that issue is not settled by pronouncement of this Court or Privy Council or by the Federal Court, or (4) the issue is not free from difficulty, and (5) it calls for a discussion for alternative view. There is no scope for interference by the High Court with a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding of fact." 8. Again the Supreme Court in case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law." 19. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (2001)3 SCC 179 a three judge Bench of this Court observed that: "A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, AIR 1962 SC 1314 (2001) 3 SCC 179 and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law "....