9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares, 100 to Ripan Kumar son of the Karta of the assessee joint family, and to Miss Ekta, another member of the family. He had sold the shares at a rate of Rs. 1,000 per share. According to the GTO, the shares were not sold at full market value. According to him, the break-up value of each share was Rs. 2,086 and, therefore, the full consideration for the shares sold should have been Rs. 3,12,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on 31st March, 1979. In reaching the break-up value under WT Rule 1-D, the provision contained in Explanation (1) has not been considered. Explanation (1) to WT Rule 1-D provides that, where there is no such balance-sheet on the date of valuation, the balance-sheet, drawn up on a day immediately preceding the valuation date, should be taken into consideration. The sale transaction had taken pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... felt aggrieved. The assessee has felt aggrieved because his plea that there was no element of deemed gift in the transaction, which was a pure transaction of sale. Therefore, the assessee is in cross-objection against the said order, passed by the GTO. 4. We, first, take up the appeal of the Revenue for disposal. We are not moved by the plea that it was a transaction of sale only and there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31st March, 1978 and not with reference to the balance-sheet as on 31st March, 1979. No doubt, he supported his plea with the Madras High Court decision reported in CGT vs. K. Ramesh (1983) 141 ITR 462 (Mad), Kerala High Court on similar facts, have held out in CGT vs. H.H. Sethu Parvathi Bai (1983) 35 CTR (Ker) 314 : (1984) 145 ITR 124 (Ker) that in valuing the shares, the provision contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares with reference to the balance-sheet as on 31st March, 1978. We, accordingly uphold the finding of the CGT and reject the plea of Revenue to the contrary as of no substance and merit. 5. We now take up the cross objection filed by the assessee, for consideration. It is found that this cross-objection was filed late. The Cross objection was filed four days late. The ld. counsel for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
