1987 (12) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ? " During the year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee sold about 240 items of silverware, including dinner plates of different sizes, goblets of different kinds, finger bowls, jugs and the like for a sum of Rs. 1,64,340. These articles had been purchased by her years earlier and their cost of acquisition in J 961 was determined by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 29,880. The difference in value was treated by the Officer as long-term capital gains. The assessee's claim that they were personal effects and were, therefore, excluded from the definition of "capital asset " under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rejected by the Officer. This finding was confirmed by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....consider the fact that they have not been used every day as of any material significance....... They may have to be used only when the occasion requires the use of such large number of articles at the same time........ The only way those articles could be put to use would be on occasions when there is a large gathering like feasts and so on. " (emphasis supplied) These are the facts found by the Tribunal. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue contains no challenge against these findings of fact. Counsel for the Revenue, however, submits that the Tribunal has misdirected itself as to the legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in deciding what is a personal effect. In H. H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v. CI....