9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77. The following question has been referred to us for consideration at the instance of the Revenue: "Whether, having regard to the Explanation to section 49(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the fact that the asset became the property of Shri Sourirajulu on the distribution of assets on the dissolution of the firm within the meaning of sub-section (1)(iii)(b) thereof, the Appellate Tribunal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h two of his adult sons on April 1, 1973, and that firm of Sourirajulu and Sons sold the theatre and derived a capital gain from that sale. For the purpose of computing the capital gain it was claimed by the firm that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh paid by Sourirajulu to the retiring partner on October 1, 1972, should also be treated as part of the cost of acquisition, in addition to the cost that had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or (b) on any distribution of assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals, or other association of persons, where such dissolution had taken place at any time before the first day of April, 1987, or (c) on any distribution of assets on the liquidation of a company, or (d) under a transfer to a revocable or irrevocable trust, or (e) under any such transfer as is referred to in daus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this sub-section." It is evident from the Explanation that where the previous owner of an asset which was sold had himself acquired it by any of the modes set out in section 49(1) in its sub-clauses (i) to (iv) it is the cost incurred by the owner who had owned the asset prior to the previous owner that is required to be taken into account and not the cost incurred by the previous owner at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
