IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.1 OF 1995 INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.1 OF 1995 INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.1 OF 1995 Shri.Edmond Britto .. Applicant Vs. CIT, Mumbai City IX, Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.S.J.Mehta for the Applicant. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 22nd July, 2008 DATE : 22nd July, 2008 DATE : 22nd July, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Reference the following two questions have been referred:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hold that the sum of Rs.2,20,000 should be taxed as long term capital gains? (b) If reply to question No.(a) is in affirmative, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs.2,20,000/- was exigible to tax as long term capital gains? 2. Both the learned Counsel for the parties categorically state that the above questions of law have already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s.D.P.Sandu Brothers - 273 ITR 1, CIT V/s.D.P.Sandu Brothers - 273 ITR 1, CIT V/s.D.P.Sandu Brothers - 273 ITR 1, against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. 3. Hence, the above two questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. Income Tax Reference stands disposed of. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)