COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SUHRID S SARABHAI TRUST NO 11

ITR/173/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020249199420 September 2005Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its oral judgment, noted that it was common ground between the parties that the references ought not to be answered in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. This was because the assessees involved were shareholders of the same company, and in the case of other shareholders, the references had been left unanswered due to the stand taken by the revenue. Consequently, following the decision of the High Court in CIT Vs. Leena Sarabhai (N.CH), (1996) 221 ITR 520, the Court left the present references unanswered and disposed of them accordingly. The specific reasoning behind the Tribunal's original decision on the exemption or the transfer issue is not elaborated upon in this judgment, as the High Court chose not to answer the questions referred. No issue was expressly left undecided; rather, all referred questions were disposed of without a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns multiple Income Tax Reference applications filed by the assessee (Gautam Sarabhai (HUF) Trust No. 8) and the Revenue. The references arise from orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The core of the dispute involves whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 47(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the receipt of shares, debentures, and bonds of amalgamated companies constituted a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Act, thereby attracting capital gains tax. The assessment years are not explicitly stated, nor is the specific amount in dispute. The procedural history involves the Tribunal referring questions of law to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Act.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two primary questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 47(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that when the assessee received shares, debentures and bonds of amalgamated companies, there was no transfer under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, and consequently no capital gains tax could be charged? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued for exemption under Section 47(vii) and that the receipt of shares, debentures, and bonds of amalgamated companies did not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47), thus no capital gains tax was leviable. The specific authorities or precedents relied upon by the assessee are not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the receipt of shares, debentures, and bonds of amalgamated companies did constitute a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Act, making the assessee liable for capital gains tax. The specific authorities or precedents relied upon by the revenue are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 47(vii),Section 2(47)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/62/1994 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 62 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 67 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 68 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 92 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 93 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 172 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 173 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 199 of 1994 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 ? ========================================================= GAUTAM SARABHAI(HUF)TRUST NO.8 - Applicant(s)

Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RK PATEL for

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 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →