Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Leenaben Chinubhai Trust
High Court
06 Nov 2000 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Leenaben Chinubhai Trust
Date of order
06 Nov 2000
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Leenaben Chinubhai Trust, the High Court (2000) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus LEENABEN CHINUBHAI TRUST -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR B.B.Naik for Petitioner Mr.B.B.Karia with Mr...
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 189 of 1985
with
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 283 OF 1985
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MR DM DHARMADHIKARI
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO 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? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
LEENABEN CHINUBHAI TRUST
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR B.B.Naik for Petitioner
Mr.B.B.Karia with Mr.R.K.Patel for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : CHIEF JUSTICE MR DM DHARMADHIKARI
and
MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : CHIEF JUSTICE MR DM DHARMADHIKARI)
�In these 2 references, the following question of
law arises:-
"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal has been right
in law in confirming the view taken by the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the
assessee was entitled to claim deduction for the
depreciation in the value of shares of Sayaji
Mills Ltd., at Rs.108.75 per share while
computing the capital gains on sale of 143 shares
of Rajesh Textile Mills Ltd.?"
2.�Learned Counsel appearing for the Department
brings to our notice decision of this Court rendered in
ITR 420 of 1983 between Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.
Suhashbhai Vadilal, where the question has been answered
in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Following the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench
in the case of C.I.T. Vs.Suhashbhai Vadilal (Supra)
which fully answers the question raised in this
reference. It reads as under:-
"We, are therefore, of the view that the assessee
was entitled to claim deduction of the amount of
depreciation in the value of his shares in Sayaji
Mills Limited being the loss incurred by him in
his capital asset in the transaction in which he
acquired the shares in Rajesh Textile Mills
Limited. The Tribunal therefore, rightly held
that as the shares in Rajesh Textile Mills were
received as a matter of right on the holding of
the shares in Sayaji Mills Limited by the
assessee, the cost of shares of Rajesh Textile
Mills Limited was the price that was paid for
such shares plus the depreciation in the value of
such shares of Sayaji Mills Limited (against
which they were issued) at the rate of Rs.108,75
paise per share. The question referred to us is
therefore, answered in the affirmative against
the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The
reference stands disposed of accordingly with no
order as to costs."
�We, therefore dispose of these references by
answering the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no orders as to costs.
����(D.M.Dharmadhikari, CJ)
����(M.S.Shah, J)
jitu
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.