This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Finding of fact does not call for interference in an appeal under section 260A – HC Bombay
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit (Bombay High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Bombay High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
The following questions of law have been formulated in the appeal filed by the revenue against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 10th February 2009:
“a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable ITAT was justified in treating the income from sale of 7,59,003 shares for Rs. 5,00,12,879/ as an income from short term capital gain and sale of 3,88,797 shares for rs . 6,65,02,340/ as long term capital gain as against the “Income from business ” assessed by the A.O.?
b) Whether, on the facts and cir...
