1973 (6) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is in these terms: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the capital gains derived by the assessee on relinquishment of his share in Malabar Fisheries Co. is exempt under section 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The year of assessment is 1963-64. The assessee was a partner in the firm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148, the assessee only stated his income at the original figure of Rs. 1,86,265, as according to the assessee the amount paid to the assessee, Rs. 3,81,082, was not anything other than a distribution of capital asset as envisaged by section 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This stand of the assessee was not accepted an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bankey Lal Vaidya, where the scope of the decision in James Anderson v. Commissioner of Income-tax has been considered. It is clear from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bankey Lal Vaidya that a distribution of money in lieu of capital assets, which may be due to a partner on dissolution of a firm, is nothing other than a dis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X