TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share of the face value of Rs. 100 and two fractional certificates each representing entitlement of 1/10th of one equity share and one 11 per cent. redeemable bond of the face value of Rs. 100 in respect of one equity share of the amalgamating company. The Income-tax Officer levied capital gain tax by holding that, as the assessee received shares, it was a transfer and that the amount received by the assessee was subject to tax as capital gains. That part of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Gautam Sarabhai Trust [1988] 173 ITR 216, held that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no taxable gains ? " In Income-tax References Nos. 132 of 1990 to 146 of 1990, 149 of 1990, 151 of 1990, 154 of 1990 to 159 of 1990, 162 of 1990 to 177 of 1990, 179 of 1990 to 182 of 1990, 184 of 1990, 187 of 1990, 188 of 1990, 191 of 1990, 194 of 1990, 127 of 1991, 128 of 1991, 129 of 1991, 132 of 1991, 135 of 1991, 136 of 1991, 143 of 1991, 144 of 1991, 157 of 1991, 158 of 1991, 160 of 1991, 162 of 1991, 163 of 1991, 165 of 1991, 168 of 1991 to 172 of 1991, 174 of 1991, 178 of 1991, 181 of 1991, 189 of 1991, 191 of 1991, 200 of 1991, 3 of 1992, 49 of 1992, 57 of 1992, 63 of 1992, 100 of 1992, 101 of 1992, 106 of 1992, 107 of 1992, 108 of 1992, 113 of 1992, 114 of 1992, 116 of 1992 to 124 of 1992, 127 of 1992, 128 of 1992, 138 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act so as to be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains". The Commissioner of Income-tax also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) [1989] 177 ITR 198, wherein the Supreme Court has approved the view taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) [1974] 95 ITR 656 that the receipt of the assessee of the 45 shares of the New Shorrock Company upon amalgamation by reason of the shareholding of the 90 shares of the Shorrock Company cannot be described as "exchange" because exchange involved a transfer of property by one person to another and reciprocally the transfer of property by the other to the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating that it was true that the Department has chosen not to prefer appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) taking a view that in such type of cases it would not amount to transfer. That correspondence is produced on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, the question involved in these references as to whether, on amalgamation of a company when the assessee receives shares and bonds of the amalgamated company in lieu of her shareholding in the amalgamating company, it is a transfer as contemplated under section 2(47) of the Act, is not required to be determined mainly because it appears from the abovereferred letter of the Commissioner of Income-tax that the Department in similar cases belonging to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
