1 ITXA157.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION KJ INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.157 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai )..Appellants Vs. M/s.Pushpanjali Investrade Pvt. Ltd., )..Respondents ---- Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellants. Mr. Vipul Joshi @ Mr.S.G.Dalal for the respondents. ---- CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 31/1/2011. PC 1 Two questions are raised by the Revenue in this appeal which are as under :- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A) in holding that the loss of Rs.3,20,37,500/- arising from the transactions of purchase and sale of units was allowable as `business loss’, disregarding the fact that it was a clear case where mutual fund authorities had colluded with the investor, who bought and sold the mutual fund units in a matter of couple of days 2 ITXA157.10.sxw so as to incur a loss which was returned back by way of pre- determined dividend ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in giving its judgment in favour of the assessee relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Wallford Shares & Stock Brokers Vs. ITO when the facts of the case is distinguishable ? 3 As regards the first question, Counsel for the Revenue states that the said question is answered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Alka Bhosle in Income Tax Appeal No.2656 of 2009, decided on 9.6.2010. 4 As regards the second question is concerned, the decision of this Court in the case of Wallford Shares & Stock Brokers Vs. ITO which is against the revenue has been upheld by the Apex Court in 326 ITR 1. Hence the second question cannot be entertained. 5 In this view of the matter, Appeal is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J)