1986 (7) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, ACTG. C.J.-In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following five questions: " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessees under section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 196....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tribunal was right in taking the cost of jewellery for the purpose of computation of capital gains as on January 1, 1954, and not as on April 1, 1973, the date on which they were declared to be capital assets? " The first three questions have been the subject-matter of other references before this court in Jayakumari and Dilharkumari v. CIT There, this court has answered the questions in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to reject the claim of the assessees. Mr. Bhat, counsel for the assessees, invited our attention to a recent decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Laxman Singh [1986] 159 ITR 983, in support of his contention that the amendment, by the Finance Act, 1972, was not retrospective and, therefore, the capital gains which accrued on the sale of the jewellery before the amendment should not b....