TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (9) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loose diamonds of the value of Rs. 40,000 held by her for her personal use from a period prior to 1954. In the absence of any information regarding the original cost or the fair market value as on January 1, 1954, the ITO had estimated the value and determined the capital gains at Rs. 28,000. The assessee had claimed before the ITO that no capital gains tax was chargeable on the above sum of Rs. 28,000 because the diamonds sold by the assessee were her movable property held by her for personal use. The ITO rejected the said claim. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the order of the ITO. On further appeal, the Tribunal followed its earlier order in several other cases of this group, wherein a similar question had arisen. The Tribunal held that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sought to be neutralised by the amendment made to s. 5(1)(viii) of the W T. Act so as to exclude jewellery from its scope. Applying that provision to the reported case, we went into the question as to whether loose diamonds could be held to be jewellery intended for personal use. Even on the basis that it was jewellery, we held that it could not have been intended for personal use. Even if the said decision does not govern the present case, we may consider the question in the light of s. 2(14) of the I.T. Act as it stood at the relevant time, which is now relied on before us. The relevant portion of s. 2(14) of the I.T. Act as it was in force prior to April 1, 1973, ran as follows: " ' Capital asset' means property of any kind held by an....