9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt by calling for the statement of the case: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise different grounds of appeal, particularly in view of the fact that the issues were not raised before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) had not considered the issue of his order? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20th March, 1984, stating that the shares were received by him from the Government of India in 1971-72 and their cost price for the purpose of capital gains may be taken on the date of receipt from the Government of India. It was further offered that the value of the bonds should be taken at the original cost, i.e., face value, and the respondent assessee himself offered for taxation the capital g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gift and did not cost anything to assessee and, therefore, no capital gain was chargeable. The Revenue objected before the Tribunal that this ground cannot be adjudicated as the same was not raised nor decided before the CIT(A), but the Tribunal rejected the objection of the Revenue. However, the Tribunal held that no capital gain is exigible on the transfer of shares and bonds on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of CIT vs. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji (1986) 51 CTR (MP) 146 : (1986) 162 ITR 93 (MP) : TC 22R.1065. 5. So far as the first question is concerned, the Tribunal held that this is a question of fact. As regards the second question, the Tribunal has decided the matter in the light of the decision of this Court. The Tribunal has, therefore, rejected the application under s. 256(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
