Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1987 (7) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... instance of the Revenue for answering the following question of law, namely: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the bonds were received in 1968, but in law the fight to receive compensation accrued to the assessee in 1956, when the Jagir was resumed by the State Government and, therefore, the gain arising from the sale of Jagir b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e by the Tribunal to decide the abovequoted question of, law under section 256(1) of the Act. There is no dispute about the correctness of the first part of the Tribunal's finding that the Jagir bonds were received in 1968, when in law the assessee's right to receive compensation accrued in 1956 on the resumption of his Jagir by the State. The only controversy is about the nature of the surplus....