9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous owner having acquired the same without paying any amount? 2. If reply to question No. 1 is in favour of the assessee, whether cost of land for determining the capital gain should be Rs. 38,734 being the market value of the land as on 25th March, 1970, when the said land was thrown into the HUF ? " Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this reference are that the father of the assessee threw land which belonged to him and which is situated at Amraiwadi in his Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his three sons. This happened on March 25, 1970. Thereafter, on October 27, 1970, the Hindu undivided family partitioned the properties and as a result thereof the assessee received his share in the said land. The land was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 3,122 as determined by the Income-tax Officer and also Rs. 6,993 which the assessee had to pay to his father under an agreement but for which he would not have got that much land. Taking this view, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and directed the Income-tax Officer to deduct Rs. 10,115 from the compensation received by the assessee. The assessee then moved the Tribunal for referring the above-stated two questions of law to this court. Mr. Divatia, learned counsel, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the point involved in this reference is now covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Ashwin M. Patel [1983] 144 ITR 566, wherein it has been held that where the assessee has acquired property by inheritance or will or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kamlal Maneklal (HUF) [1987] 168 ITR 733. He further submitted that for that reason, the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 will not be applicable as in this case it will be possible to compute the capital gains. Lastly, and in the alternative, he submitted that the word " devolution " is covered by section 49(1)(iii)(a) and, therefore, the cost of acquisition may be the cost of acquisition to the previous owner. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Krishnamurthy [1985] 152 ITR 669 and further submitted that section 49(1)(iii)(a) is, therefore, only clarificatory. We are in this case concerned with the transaction that took place in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
