| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0247 (SC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,
Section 261 Section 143(3)
Where the Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. K.P.D. Sigamani [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 21 to 23 of 2011, dt. 30-1-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3360 (Mad-HC), whereby it was held that revenue had not given any positive finding as to how the transaction to be termed as a colourable device or fraudulent transaction, that in fact, the order proceeds on surmises and conjunctures and there was no finding to the effect that a colourable device was conceived by the assessee to defraud the revenue, thus, no ground was made out to interfere with the factual finding rendered by the Tribunal, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on the ground of delay.
|
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special Leave Petition - Forfeiture of partly paid shares, whether a sham transaction - Validity of
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. K.P.D. Sigamani [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 21 to 23 of 2011, dt. 30-1-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3360 (Mad-HC), whereby it was held that revenue had not given any positive finding as to how the transaction to be termed as a colourable device or fraudulent transaction, that in fact, the order proceeds on surmises and conjunctures and there was no finding to the effect that a colourable device was conceived by the assessee to defraud the revenue, thus, no ground was made out to interfere with the factual finding rendered by the Tribunal. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on the ground of delay.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|