Of Cit v. Gautam Sarabhai Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 197 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 R 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 the Assessee, the following question is referred to this Court under Sec. 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s. 47 (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 2.�At the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred to this Court under Sec. 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that when the assessee received shares, debentures and bonds of amalgamated companies, there was no transfer under Section 2 (47) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and consequently no capital gains tax could be charged ?" 3.�So far as the question referred to at the instance of the Assessee is concerned, it is required to be answered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue in view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gautam Sarabhai Trust No. 31 (173 ITR 216). 4.�So far as the question referred to at the instance of the Revenue is concerned, it is not required to be answered in view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Leena Sarabhai, reported in (1994) 120 CTR (Guj.) 300. Accordingly, the question at the instance of the Assessee is answered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue and the question at the instance of the Revenue is not answered. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order asto costs. **********