2008 (5) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., with him) for the appellant. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate (P.K. Manohar, Samir Divatia, Advocates, with him) for the respondent. ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Revenue has filed this appeal. By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed Tax Appeal No.368 of 2001 filed by the Revenue, by observing that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises from the order of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erved that while the respondent had claimed depreciation value of the depreciated assets available on enhancement of the amount of revaluation on the date of conversion as capital gain though there was a transfer of assets from the partnership firm in the hands of the company which is a separate entity. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 148 of the Act for reassessment were initiated and therea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on the facts of the case in holding that revaluation of the assets of the assessee firm and subsequent conversion of the firm into Limited Company under Chapter IX of the Companies Act who has taken over such assets at the enhanced value will not result into any capital gain liability under the I.T. Act? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court. In our opinion, the questions of law raised by the Revenue before the High Court are substantial questions of law which arise from the order of the Tribunal. The High Court should have decided these questions by recording its findings thereon. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Tax Appeal No.368 of 2001 is admitted on the aforementioned four questions of law. We request the High....