9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the capital gains arising to the assessee by the sale of the property in question its cost of acquisition should be taken as its market value as on April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family notwithstanding its being enjoyed as an asset of the firm under the partnership deed dated November 6, 1953, and that its cost should be taken at the original cost and at best the assessee has the right to have the cost as on January 1, 1954, to be substituted in view of section 55(2) of the Act. Since there was no such option, it was his view that the cost has to be taken as the market val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The market value of the property as on that date was directed to be adopted. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following the said decision allowed the assessee's appeal as to date of acquisition (April 1, 1964) but remitted the question of actual computation of capital gains to the Income-tax Officer, by ascertaining the market value as on that date. On further appeal, the Tribunal confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the Tribunal was not right in holding that in computing the capital gains, the cost of acquisition should be taken as its market value as on April 1, 1964. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee relying upon the decisions in CIT v. Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. [1994] 209 ITR 44 (Cal) and Goculdas Dossa and Co. v. J. P. Shah [1995] 211 ITR 706 (Bom) [FB], contended that the market value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
