9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (" Tribunal "), at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following common question of law for the opinion of this court but in respect of different assessees. " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under the Act. On January 28, 1980, the Income-tax Officer by separate but identical orders completed the assessments, rejected the claims of the assessees and brought the receipts to capital gains tax under the Act. Aggrieved by the said orders made by the Income-tax Officer, the assessees filed separate but identical appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n March 24, 1986, in W.P. No. 4309 of 1981 (B. S. Jayachandra v. ITO [1986] 161 ITR 190), the assessees were clearly chargeable to capital gains tax under the Act. Sri K. B. Basavarajan, learned counsel for the assessee, in our opinion, rightly does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by Sri Srinivasan. Both the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in deciding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have held that section 2(14)(iii) of the Act was not on the statute book on the basis of a ruling of the Bombay High Court which had its operation only in the State of Maharashtra. In Patil Vijaykumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar), we have clarified the legal position of a declaration of an all India Act by a different High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
