: 1 : IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.920 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.920 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.920 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-19, . Mumbai ...Appellant V/s. Mary C. Sayed ...Respondent Mr.R.G. Bhat, Advocate, for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. A.V. A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 10TH JULY, 2008. : 10TH JULY, 2008. : 10TH JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. In the above Appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law :- (a). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal has correct in deleting the long term capital gain of Rs.16,89,500/- for A.Y. 1993-94 on the ground that the transfer was not completed in the financial year 1992-93 relevant to A.y. 1993-94 ignoring the fact that sale agreement irrevocable Power of Attorney were executed : 2 : and the substantial sale consideration was received during the financial year 1992-93 relevant to A.y.1993-94? (b). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in not following the ratio had laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia V. CIT reported in 260 ITR 491? 3. We have perused the Tribunal’s Judgment dated 16th January, 2006. The Tribunal, in fact, though not quoted the judgment of our Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia V. CIT [260 ITR 491], has adopted the same principle and has rightly held that the transfer was not completed in the assessment year 1993-94 whereas the transfer had actually taken place only in the assessment year 1997-98 and in fact the assessee has offered the amount of capital gain tax during that assessment year. 4. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above Appeal and the same stands dismissed. : 3 : [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]