2000 (8) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1961, was not applicable to the facts of the case ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in reducing the sale value per share to Rs. 15.75 as against prevailing market rate per share at Rs. 26 for the purpose of computing the capital gains tax ?" It is borne out from the record that the respondent-assessee filed a return on July 31, 1987, declaring his income as Rs. 2,25,990. Later on, he filed the revised return showing the income as Rs. 1,85,990. The Assessing Officer did not accept his return and by an order dated July 21, 1989, passed under section 143(3) of the Act, he assessed the income of the respondent to be Rs. 4,26,450 by taking into consideration the capital gain on the sal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assesse and his ,family members severred all connections with Nuchem Plastics and its management. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).further observed that there was a prolonged litigation and that the assessee was deprived of all remuneration from Nuchem Plastics after May, 197.9, and even the dividends on the shareholding of Nuchem Plastics were not paid to him by the management and that the suits were filed in courts. Ultimately, there was a settlement in November, 1985, according to which it was mutually agreed that all the shares held by the assesse his wife and his children in the equity capital of the company would be sold by them and they should divest themselves of any interest in the company. It was agreed that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assessing Officer that the entire trans action was coloured and collusive was uncalled for and the same was not borne out from the facts and circumstances mentioned above. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the said submissions and for the reasons given in the order and after examining the provisions of section 52 of the Income-tax Act concluded that the sale made by the asses see was a distress sale and that the assessee was not connected directly or indirectly with any of the transferee companies within the meaning of section 52(1). He also held that there was no evidence or material in tile possession, of the Assessing officer to even remotely suggest that the transfer was made with the object of avoidance o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent year 1987-88 also the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) gave the same direction." Shri Sawhney argued that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have gravely erred in holding that the sale price of the shares was Rs. 15.75 per share. He submitted that others had sold shares at the rate of Rs. 26 per share and, therefore, there was no valid ground to accept the plea of the respondent that he had sold the shares at the rate of Rs. 15.75 per share. In our opinion, the concurrent finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal on the issue of the sale price of the shares sold by the respondent does not suffer from any legal infirmity which may justify issuance of a direct....