Supreme Court Of India
CIT vs. N. Kishore Settlement
Section 256(2)
S.C. Agrawal, K. Venkataswami & A.P. Misra, JJ.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2291 & 2292 of 1996
19th January, 1998
JUDGMENT
By the court :
These appeals are covered by the judgment dt. 26th Sept., 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3180 of 1992 titled CIT vs. Sakarlal Balabhai & Co. Ltd. (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 499 : (1996) 222 ITR 486 (SC) : TC 54R.1022, and connected matters wherein this Court had set aside the orders passed by the High Court rejecting the applications of the Revenue filed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, and directed the Tribunal, Ahmedabad, to refer the questions of law in the different cases as specified hereinabove for the decision of the High Court and forward the same along with the statement of case and the relevant documents.
2. In the same terms these appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court rejecting the applications of the Revenue filed under s. 256(2) are set aside and the Tribunal, Ahmedabad, is directed to refer the following questions of law raised by the Revenue for the decision of the High Court and forward the same along with the statement of case and the relevant documents :
“Whether, in law and on facts, the Tribunal is right in confirming the view taken by the CIT(A) on directing the ITO to recompute the capital gains on the basis of the principles laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 138 : (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) : TC 20R.148 ?
Whether, in law and on facts, the Tribunal is right in observing that it would make no difference in the methods of ascertaining the value of original shares as per option of the assessee and the value of the bonus shares in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 138 : (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) : TC 20R.148 and, therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) was correct ?”
3. The Tribunal will take appropriate steps to enable the High Court to dispose of the matters finally. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
[Citation: 236 ITR 35]