1985 (11) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y incorporated in the States orf Malaysia, Registered Office No. 1527, Jalan mehsuri, Alor Setar, Kodah. Total sale value $7,02,310-65 Add : Compensation received from . Government of Malyaysia $ 19,962.10 Less : Compensation paid to 7,22,272.75 workers and valuation fees 1,976.66 Brokerage paid to brokers 14,046.20 Brokerage paid to agent 39,803.34 Fees paid to advocate 43,407.66 . 59,233.86 Net realisation $ 6,63,038.89 The assessee was holding the abovesaid property from 1951. The cost of acquisition of the property was $ 11,107.50. The assessee was owning the property even prior to 1st Jan., 1964. The assessee is not having a valuation certificate in respect of the property as on 1st Jan., 1964. Hence, the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ention urged by the ld. counsel was that there was a merger of the order of the ITO with that of the AAC dt. 24th Jan., 1984 and, therefore, the CIT could not have passed the order in revision which he did on 3rd/12th Sept., 1984. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dwarakadas Private Ltd. vs. ITO (1982) 13 TTJ (Bom) : 107 (1982) 1 ITD 303 (Bom) (SB). The second contention put forth was that in any event, the Tribunal had been holding that capital gains arising in Malaysia could not be subjected to tax in India in view of the same being exempt by virtue of Art. 6 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the Governments of India and Malaysia. For th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh Court in the case of CIT vs. Emco-K. C. P. Limited (1984) 147 ITR 603 (Mad) squarely supported the stand. On the point of the applicability of s. 54-B, the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative was that when there was a reference to an individual or a parent of his, it is clear that assessee such as HUFs were excluded from the purview of exemption under s. 54-B. In this regard, reliance was placed on decisions reported in Shrigopal Rameshwardass vs. Addl. CIT 1978 CTR (MP) 293 : (1984) 119 ITR 980. CED vs. Smt. Ram Sumant Devi (1984) 38 CTR (All) 111 : (1979) 147 ITR 233 (All) and CIT vs. Chandrashekhar (1984) 38 CTR (Kar) 246 : (1984) 145 ITR 429 (Kar). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The decisions of the Madra....