Itr/191/1994 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrinalini V Sarabhai Trust
High Court
11 Jul 1996 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Itr/191/1994 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrinalini V Sarabhai Trust
Date of order
11 Jul 1996
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itr/191/1994 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrinalini V Sarabhai 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 ? --------------------------------------------------------- Appearance : Mr Manish Bhatt, Advocate for the Applicant.
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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 191 OF 1994
For Approval of 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 judgments ?
2. To be referred to the Report or not ?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India, 1950 or any Order made
thereunder ?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil
Judge ?
---------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Mr Manish Bhatt, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr R K Patel, Advocate for the Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------
Coram : B.C. Patel & R.R. Jain, JJ.
Date of Decision : 11th July, 1996
Oral Judgment : (Per B.C. Patel, J.)
�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 there was no trasfer
in the present case and therefore, there was 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.