9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , gifted on March 14, 1974, the proper balance-sheet to be taken was as on March 31, 1973, and not the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1974 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions for gratuity should not be added back in arriving at the total assets of the company for the purpose of determining the break-up value of the shares ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a net deduction of Rs. 19 lakhs should be made from the total value of the assets of the company in relation to dividends to arrive at the break-up value of the shares ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft instead of the one nearer to it. He also held that the provision for gratuity should be deducted. The Revenue preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order in G.T.A. No. 6/77-78, dated March 4, 1978, held that the value returned by the assessee for the shares gifted in T.V.S. and Sons Private Limited, should be adopted instead of the value determined by the Gift-tax Officer. It is this order of the Tribunal which is the subject-matter of the present tax case reference. In so far as the first question of law that is referred to us is concerned, the Supreme Court in S. Viji v. CGT [1998] 229 ITR 421, held that for calculating the break-up value of the shares, the balance-sheet nearer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. 3 to 5 as the answer to the questions would depend upon the decision to be rendered by the Tribunal on the first question. The same mode was also adopted by this court in CGT v. Gopal Srinivasan (Minor) [1995] 214 ITR 641 (Appex.), wherein this court considered five identical questions and has not rendered any answer to questions Nos. 3 to 5, but directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider the value of the shares on the basis of the decision in CGT v. Venu Srinivasan [1985] 156 ITR 679 (Mad), i.e., to determine the value of shares on the basis of the balance-sheet nearer to the date of the gift. Since we are holding that the Tribunal was not correct in taking into account the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1973, for the purpose of valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
