C.I.T. vs. BEAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.

ITR/34/2003HC GujaratGJHC24025690200315 February 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference (ITR/34/2003) before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), and the respondent is Beas Investment Pvt. Ltd. The matter was referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the applicant (CIT) stated that the issues referred by the Tribunal were concluded by this Court's prior judgment in CIT v. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd. (dated 10/02/2006 in ITR No. 102 of 1995). Both parties agreed that the questions were concluded by the aforementioned decision. Consequently, the filing of the paper-book was dispensed with, and the reference was taken up for final hearing and disposal.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the two referred questions based on its prior judgment in CIT v. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd. For the first question, concerning the computation of capital gains by taking the cost in the hands of the previous owner under Section 49(1)(iii)(e), the Court answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This implies the Tribunal's finding on this point was upheld. For the second question, regarding whether capital gains were chargeable to tax despite Section 46(2), in view of the benefit of Section 47(v), the Court answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. This means the revenue's contention that capital gains were indeed chargeable was accepted, and the benefit of Section 47(v) was not considered applicable to exempt the gains in this context. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal referred two questions of law for the Court's decision: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that, in view of section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, capital gain should be computed by taking the cost in the hands of the previous owner, namely, KPPL? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that inspite of section 46(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, capital gains chargeable to tax had not arisen in this case in view of the fact that benefit of section 47(v) would be available to the assessee? Contentions: Assessee: The assessee contended that the capital gains should be computed based on the cost in the hands of the previous owner (as per section 49(1)(iii)(e)) and that no capital gains were chargeable due to the benefit of section 47(v). Revenue: The revenue argued that section 46(2) should be considered, and the benefit of section 47(v) should not be available to exempt the capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 49(1)(iii)(e),Section 46(2),Section 47(v),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/34/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 34 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== C.I.T. - Applicant(s) Versus BEAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR BB NAIK for Applicant MR RK PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================================== CORAM :  HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 15/02/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1.The Board shows the endorsement “Notice not I

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 49(1)(iii)(e)

All 25 judgments and leading authorities on Section 49(1)(iii)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →