9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch are : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to capital gains tax in respect of the amount of Rs. 80,000 received from the insurance company on February 18, 1977, on the loss of Boat No. T. U. 87 ? and (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act so as to attract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal, the order of the assessing authority was confirmed and the contentions raised by the assessee were not accepted. The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal was also rejected, and in the said circumstances, these questions are referred to us. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the amount realised by the assessee from the insurer arose out of the sinking of the ship and not as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not, and was on account of the destruction or loss of the asset, it was not a transfer and did not attract the provisions of section 45 which related to transfer and not to mere extinguishment of a right. Hence, an extinguishment of right not brought about by transfer was outside the purview of section 45. (ii) That in the case of damage, partial or complete, or destruction or loss of the prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en over by the insurance company. (iv) That it was not necessary to inquire whether the amount received by the appellant was spent in replacement of the machinery or not. (v) That, therefore, the difference of Rs. 3,50,792 was not capital gains and was not chargeable to tax under section 45." As the principles laid down by the apex court are squarely applicable to the case on hand, we also h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
