SHYAMA SARABHAI TRUST NO.4, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITR/93/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020171199420 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 light of a common ground between the parties, decided not to answer the reference questions. It was noted that the assesses were shareholders of the same company, and in similar cases involving other shareholders of that company, the revenue had taken a stand that led to the references being left unanswered. Consequently, following the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Leena Sarabhai (N.CH), (1996) 221 ITR 520, the High Court left the questions unanswered and disposed of the references. No specific finding was reached on the merits of the exemption under Section 47(vii) or the interpretation of 'transfer' under Section 2(47). The operative direction was to leave the questions unanswered and dispose of the references.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns multiple Income Tax Reference applications filed by both 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 revolves around the taxability of shares, debentures, and bonds received by the assessee from amalgamated companies. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the Tribunal referring specific questions of law to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of both parties.

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? The assessee contended that they were not entitled to exemption under Section 47(vii). The revenue contended that the receipt of shares, debentures, and bonds of amalgamated companies constituted a transfer under Section 2(47), making capital gains tax chargeable. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments or authorities cited by each side for these specific questions, beyond stating the questions themselves.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 2(47)

All 851 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →