9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? " However, after a due consideration of the facts of this case, we are not satisfied that there is any justification to direct a reference. The assessee in this case had acquired 493 shares of M/s. Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Limited on April 1, 1963, on a partition, 205 shares by purchase on October 17, 1970, of which 55 shares were acquired at the rate of Rs. 136 per share and 150 shares at the rate of Rs. 131 per share. He also acquired on March 31, 1972, 58 shares of which 43 shares were purchased at the rate of Rs. 100 per share and 15 shares at the rate of Rs. 137 per share. Later, in the year 1974, he had acquired 756 bonus shares. Thus the assessee held in all at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Income-tax took the value as " nil ". In this view, the Commissioner of Income-tax directed the Income-tax Officer to compute the capital gains by adopting the cost of acquisition of the shares at the figure Rs. 1,60,640, as against the cost adopted by the Income-tax Officer originally at Rs. 1,95,426. Against the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Act, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal contending that the Commissioner of Income-tax was wrong in holding that in computing the capital gains, no cost should be taken for the bonus shares, and that the said view is contrary to the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. General Investment Co. Ltd. [1981] 131 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all matters to be decided by the Income-tax Officer to whom the matter has been remitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal, in the concluding portion of its order, has observed as follows : " We, therefore, while upholding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263, would modify his direction and instead of directing the Income-tax Officer to adopt the cost of acquisition in the manner stated by him would set aside the assessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to redetermine the capital gains in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the assessee and considering his objections." Having regard to the said order of the Tribunal which specifically enables the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
