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

ITR/31/2003HC GujaratGJHC24025687200315 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) No. 31 of 2003 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), and the respondent is Bamas Investment Pvt. Ltd. The case concerns assessment years not specified in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The procedural history indicates that notice was not initially served back, but the learned standing counsel for the applicant appeared and accepted notice. The applicant requested that the filing of the paper-book be dispensed with, as the issues referred were concluded by a prior judgment of the High Court in CIT v. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd. on February 10, 2006.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, by its judgment dated February 15, 2006, disposed of the reference. For the reasons stated in its earlier judgment in CIT v. Brahmi Investments Pvt. Ltd. (dated February 10, 2006), the Court answered Question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This means the Tribunal was correct in holding that capital gains should be computed by taking the cost in the hands of the previous owner, as per Section 49(1)(iii)(e). Question No. 2 was answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. This implies the Tribunal was incorrect in holding that no capital gains were chargeable to tax despite Section 46(2), in view of the benefit of Section 47(v). The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal referred two questions of law to 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) 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? The assessee contended that 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), despite Section 46(2). The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but it is implied they contested these positions, leading to the reference.

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/31/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 31 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 BANAS 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

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 →