Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1987 (7) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e right to future profits was surrendered to the extent of 70% to the incoming partners. This right was quantified by taking the average of the last four years' profit and taking two years' purchase price, amounting to Rs. 3,30,782. The assessment order is dated June 18, 1970. There was an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He upheld the levy of gift-tax. He entertained doubts regarding valuation. He ordered a remit on that score. There was a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed rectification proceedings on June 28, 1971. He held that the devaluation profits should be excluded. Finally, the Appellate Tribunal passed an order on February 28, 1973. It upheld t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ery transaction after June 6, 1966. It is akin to a sudden spurt in selling price which is maintained. It was held that the profits of the business had been maintained at a high level even after devaluation and so, on facts, the Appellate Tribunal did not find a case for treating the change in the exchange rate as an extraordinary circumstance leading to profits. On merits, regarding quantification, it was limited to one year's purchase price. The assessee filed an application for referring a question of law which arose out of the appellate order. It was rejected. This court was moved in O.P. No. 1715 of 1978-D. In pursuance of the directions of this court, the following question of law has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal for the de....