9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing three questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that as the bonus shares in question were acquired after January 1, 1954, the assessee could not be allowed the option of substitution of the market value as on January 1, 1954, in regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1980, 212 of 1982 and 213 of 1982 (CIT v. Nandkishore Sakarlal (Indl.) [1994] 208 ITR 14). Following that decision, we answer question No. 2 in the negative and question No. 3 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It may be stated that questions Nos. 2 and 3 were referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue, whereas question No. 1 is referred at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of that provision was that the asset in question should have become the property of the assessee before January 1, 1954. The bonus shares had not become the property of the assessee before January 1, 1954, and, therefore, the condition prescribed by section 55(2)(b)(i) was obviously not satisfied. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the assessee has become infructuous. In the result, qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
