1993 (1) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns chargeable under the Act was nil, in view of the previous owner having acquired the same without paying any amount? 2. If reply to question No. 1 is in favour of the assessee, whether cost of land for determining the capital gain should be Rs. 38,734 being the market value of the land as on 25th March, 1970, when the said land was thrown into the HUF ? " Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this reference are that the father of the assessee threw land which belonged to him and which is situated at Amraiwadi in his Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his three sons. This happened on March 25, 1970. Thereafter, on October 27, 1970, the Hindu undivided family partitioned the properties and as a result thereof the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held that the cost of acquisition to the assessee was Rs. 3,122 as determined by the Income-tax Officer and also Rs. 6,993 which the assessee had to pay to his father under an agreement but for which he would not have got that much land. Taking this view, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and directed the Income-tax Officer to deduct Rs. 10,115 from the compensation received by the assessee. The assessee then moved the Tribunal for referring the above-stated two questions of law to this court. Mr. Divatia, learned counsel, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the point involved in this reference is now covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Ashwin M. Patel [1983] 144 ITR 566, wherein it has been held that where the a....