In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bhartidevi Sarabhai (D) Trust, the High Court (1996) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHARTIDEVI SARABHAI (D) TRUST NO.33, -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR RK P...
Decision: This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 231 of 1994
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
============================================================
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
BHARTIDEVI SARABHAI (D) TRUST NO.33,
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
MR RK PATEL for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
Date of decision: 11/07/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
�At the instance of Revenue, the following
question has been referred to this Court under Sec. 256
(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act").
"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law
and on facts in holding that when the assessee has received shares and bonds of certain companies in lieu of certain shares held in a company which had amalgamated with the company whose shares and bonds were received, there was no transfer and thereby no taxable capital
gains?"
2.�We have heard the counsels for both the parties. In view of the decision of this Court reported in 120 CTR 300, this question need not to be answered. This reference is disposed of accordingly 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.