1993 (4) TMI 308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding the assessee-company as company in which the public are substantially interested in spite of the fact that the provisions of s. 2(18)(b)(B)(iii) are clearly applicable to the company's case ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the profit of ₹ 5,14,000 on sale of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 without taking into consideration the Board's Circular No. 415 of 14th March, 1985 wherein it has been clarified that the transaction of such a nature would attract capital gains tax ? 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, the petitioner has relied upon the same facts and circumstances as were obtaining in respect of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facts: The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of tin containers and caps. The assessee had purchased on 8th Aug., 1980 National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 for a sum of ₹ 24,16,000. The assessee sold the same on 17th Oct., 1980 for ₹ 29,30,000. The date of maturity of the Bonds was 27th Oct., 1980. The assessee had contended that ₹ 5,14,000 which was the excess realisation from the sale of these Gold Bonds was neither taxable as income nor as capital gain. Under s. 2(14) of the IT Act, the Gold Bonds are excluded from the definition of capital assets . Hence, the assessee contended that the excess realisation cannot be considered as capital gain. This contention was upheld by the Tribunal, which has held that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as an adventure in the nature of trade. The Tribunal has said that there was nothing on record which would indicate that this was an adventure in the nature of trade. In view of this position and on facts also, the so called reframing of this question is not warranted. 5. In any event, in a similar case dealing with a single transaction for purchase and sale of Gold Bonds a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Mrs. Manohar, J.) was a party has held that such a solitary transaction of purchase and sale of Gold Bonds cannot be considered as giving rise to any income [Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 316(Bom)]. Hence, the so called reframing of the second question is not warranted. 6. In the premises, the Rule is disc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X