Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ashaben Rohitbhai
High Court
09 Feb 1999 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ashaben Rohitbhai
Date of order
09 Feb 1999
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ashaben Rohitbhai, the High Court (1999) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that while working out the cost of acquisition on sale of shares of Rajesh Textile Mills, depreciation in the value of shares of Sayaji Mills Ltd. at Rs.
Decision: The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ____
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 158 of 1984
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
�1�Yes �2 to 5�No
-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
ASHABEN ROHITBHAI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR BB NAIK with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
Date of decision: 09/02/99
ORAL JUDGEMENT (per A.R. Dave, J.)
�The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred for opinion of this Court the following questions of law under the provisions of sec.
256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
"1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
has been right in law in holding that
while working out the cost of acquisition
on sale of shares of Rajesh Textile
Mills, depreciation in the value of shares of Sayaji Mills Ltd. at Rs. 108.75 per share required to be allowed?
2. Whether, on the facts of the case, the
direction to the Income-tax Officer to
compute the capital gain by allowing
deduction for depreciation in the value of shares of Sayaji Mills Ltd. at Rs. 108.75 per share as part of the cost of
shares sold, is correct in law?"
2.�The circumstances in which the above-referred
questions have been referred to this Court are as under:-
3.�The assessee was owner of certain shares of
Sayaji Mills Ltd. and on the basis of her holding of Sayaji Mills Ltd. she was allotted shares of Rajesh Textile Mills Ltd. Upon allotment of shares of Rajesh Textile Mills Ltd., the market value of shares of Sayaji Mills Ltd. had declined and therefore in the matter of calculation of capital gain, while selling shares of Rajesh Textile Mills, the assessee had claimed deduction of depreciation in the value of shares of Sayaji Mills Ltd. The Tribunal was of the view that depreciation in value of the shares of Sayaji Mills Ltd. should be considered and therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue had approached the Tribunal for making a reference.
4.�The questions referred to hereinabove are no more
res integra in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss Dhun Kapadia v. CIT, reported in 63 ITR 651 and also in view of opinion rendered by this Court in ITR No. 420/83 in the matter of CIT v. Suhashbhai Vadilal.
5.�In view of the fact that similar questions were decided in favour of the assessee and as facts are same, in the instant case, following the judgments referred to hereinabove, we answer both the questions referred to us in affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
____
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.