C.I.T. vs. RUPA INVESTMENT P.LTD.(IVL)

ITR/13/2003HC GujaratGJHC24025669200315 February 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred two questions of law to the High Court of Gujarat concerning assessment years not explicitly stated. The applicant, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), was represented by Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, and the respondent, Rupa Investment Pvt. Ltd. (IVL), was represented by Mr. R.K. Patel. The High Court noted that the notice had not been received back, but Mr. Bhatt appeared for the applicant and accepted notice, undertaking to file his appearance. Mr. Bhatt requested that the filing of the paper-book be dispensed with, as the issues referred were already concluded by this Court's decision in CIT v. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd. The parties agreed that the questions were concluded by the aforementioned decision.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the referred questions based on its prior judgment in CIT v. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd. dated 10/2/2006. For the first question, concerning the computation of capital gains by taking the cost in the hands of the previous owner as per Section 49(1)(iii)(e), the Court answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This implies the Court found that the cost of acquisition for capital gains purposes should indeed be the cost incurred by the previous owner. For the second question, regarding whether capital gains were chargeable to tax despite Section 46(2) in light of the benefit of Section 47(v), the Court answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. This suggests the Court found that capital gains were indeed chargeable to tax, and the benefit of Section 47(v) did not exempt the transaction, or that Section 46(2) was applicable in a manner that led to taxability. The Reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal referred two questions for determination by the High Court: 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 despite section 46(2), capital gains chargeable to tax had not arisen in this case in view of the fact that the benefit of section 47(v) would be available to the assessee? The assessee contended that capital gains should be computed based on the cost in the hands of the previous owner, citing Section 49(1)(iii)(e), and that no capital gains were chargeable due to the benefit of Section 47(v), notwithstanding Section 46(2). The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but the outcome indicates they argued against the assessee's position on at least one of the issues.

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/13/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 13 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 RUPA INVESTMENT P.LTD.(IVL) - 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 “Notice

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 →