9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Rs. Rs. Gold -- Consideration 66,940 -- Cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; 1,60,000 (loss) There is no dispute that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 5,000 allowable under section 80T. The dispute is about the amount of deduction further allowable at 40 per cent of the long-term capital gain. 2. According to the assessee, the amount of deduction is to be worked out at 40 per cent of each of the amounts of long-term capital gain arising from the sale of gold and the shares of Deepak Nitrate Ltd., respectively, but before setting off the loss from the sale of the shares of the Sodium Metal (P.) Ltd. The assessee worked out the deduction in the sum of Rs. 1,60,890 as below: &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; ----------------- 4,12,228 &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; ----------------- Capital gain 2,00,000 Add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; ----------------- Capital gain 2,42,228 &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT v. K.AL. KR. Ramaswami Chettiar [1979] 120 ITR 694 which had been reported in 1979 and the ratio of these decisions is against the revenue. 5. Shri Khare, learned representative of the assessee, preferred to refer us to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. T. Ramadas M. Pai v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 883, which follows in turn the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. G.M. Grover [1978] 115 ITR 885, though it relates to construction of section 80L and not section 80T. Shri Inamdar, learned departmental representative, tried to distinguish the authorities relied upon by Shri Khare on the ground that they related to the question whether the income chargeable as dividends can be reduced by allowing expenditure under section 57(iii) before allowing deduction under section 80L whereas in the case under consideration, the point is whether loss under the head "Long-term capital gains" could be set off against the income under the head "Long-term capital gains" under section 70(2)(ii). Suffice it to state that as far as we can see there are decisions of the High Courts on the construction of section 80T itself, though there is a conflict in the views taken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
