9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The assessee is the appellant. The assessment year concerned is 1990-91. The brief facts which are necessary for decision of this case are as follows: The assessee was a partner in a firm by name M/s. Mettallieds doing business in steel. The said firm was doing agency business for the company M/s. Pennar Steels Ltd. The firm had made deposit with the company for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the assessee the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, allowed the appeal directing the computation of capital gains treating it as a long-term capital asset. He took the view that the shares must be deemed to have been allotted on March 31, 1988. In appeal by the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the first appellate authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the company to the appellant only on May 31, 1988, and there is no material or evidence produced by the assessee to show that the allotment of the shares was made by the company on any date prior to March 31, 1988. The senior counsel accordingly submitted that the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal were perfectly justified in taking the view that the capital gains assessment has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allotted to the appellant earlier than May 31, 1988. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal the view of the first appellate authority that the assessee should be construed as having acquired the shares on March 31, 1988, cannot be sustained. We fully endorse the view of the Tribunal that the appellant got the shares which are the subject matter of the capital gains tax only on May 31, 1988, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
