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

ITR/17/2003HC GujaratGJHC24025673200315 February 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This is an Income Tax Reference (ITR) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) against Venganga Investment Pvt. Ltd. The reference concerns assessment years not explicitly stated in the judgment. The applicant (CIT) appeared through its counsel, Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, who accepted notice and undertook to file appearance. The respondent (assessee) appeared through its counsel, Mr. R.K. Patel. The applicant requested that the filing of the paper-book be dispensed with, as the issues referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) were already concluded by a prior judgment of the High Court in the case of CIT v. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd. dated 10/02/2006. Both parties agreed that the questions were concluded by the aforesaid decision. The High Court granted the prayer to dispense with the paper-book and proceeded with the final hearing.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, by referring to its prior judgment in CIT v. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd. (dated 10/02/2006), answered the referred questions. For the first question, concerning the computation of capital gains by taking the cost in the hands of the previous owner (KPPL) in view of 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 chargeable to tax had not arisen in view of the benefit of Section 47(v) despite Section 46(2), the Court answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. This means the Court found that capital gains were indeed chargeable to tax, and the benefit of Section 47(v) did not preclude it. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred two questions of law to the High Court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that, in view of section 49(1)(iii)(e) 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) 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 capital gains should be computed by taking 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 contended that Section 46(2) should be considered, implying that capital gains were chargeable. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments for the revenue on the second issue, but the answer suggests they argued against the assessee's claim regarding Section 47(v).

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/17/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 17 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 VENGANGA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT 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 “Noti

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 →