ITR/62/1994 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 62 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 67 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 68 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 92 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 93 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 172 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 173 of 1994 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 199 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter 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 ? ========================================================= GAUTAM SARABHAI(HUF)TRUST NO.8 - Applicant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RK PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1, MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ITR/62/1994 2/4 JUDGMENT Date : 20/09/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1. The following two questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee and the revenue respectively by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE: “Whether, on the facts and 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 ?” AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE: “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 Income-tax Act, and consequently no capital gains tax could be charged?” 2. Heard Mr.R.K.Patel, learned advocate for the assessee and Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue. It is ITR/62/1994 3/4 JUDGMENT common ground between the parties that the reference ought not to be answered in light of the facts and circumstances of the case considering that the assesses herein are shareholders of the same company in which, in case of other shareholders, the reference has been left unanswered because of the stand taken by the revenue. 3. Therefore, in light of the decision of this Court as recorded in case of CIT Vs. Leena Sarabhai (N.CH), (1996) 221 ITR 520, these references are left unanswered and stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. Registry to place a copy of this order in all connected matters. Sd/- Sd/- [ D.A. MEHTA, J ] [ H.N. DEVANI, J ] ITR/62/1994 4/4 JUDGMENT Bhavesh*