Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. S. Roopkaran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Case No. 112 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1985]154ITR717(AP)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentDr. S. Roopkaran
Excerpt:
direct taxation - non-maintainability of appeal - appeal cannot be filed before high court on question of fact - it can only be on question of law - held, as appeal filed before court against decision of tribunal on question of fact thus not maintainable. - - in order to find out what the amount of capital gains was, the tribunal had to ascertain the basic worth of the shares and the tribunal has valued those shares in the light of well-known principles of accountancy regarding the valuation of the shares of a private limited company......the two questions which are sought to be referred to the high court arise in connection with the capital gains which the assessee is said to have earned in the year of assessment. it is clear on the facts of the case as set out by the tribunal that the assessee exchanged his immovable property for the shares floated by the transferee-company. in order to find out what the amount of capital gains was, the tribunal had to ascertain the basic worth of the shares and the tribunal has valued those shares in the light of well-known principles of accountancy regarding the valuation of the shares of a private limited company. it cannot be said that the tribunal has adopted any wrong principles or has erred in law in arriving at the conclusions regarding the valuation of the shares. hence,.....
Judgment:

Divan, C.J.

1. The two questions which are sought to be referred to the High Court arise in connection with the capital gains which the assessee is said to have earned in the year of assessment. It is clear on the facts of the case as set out by the Tribunal that the assessee exchanged his immovable property for the shares floated by the transferee-company. In order to find out what the amount of capital gains was, the Tribunal had to ascertain the basic worth of the shares and the Tribunal has valued those shares in the light of well-known principles of accountancy regarding the valuation of the shares of a private limited company. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has adopted any wrong principles or has erred in law in arriving at the conclusions regarding the valuation of the shares. Hence, questions Nos. 1 and 2 which turn upon the question of capital gains cannot be said to arise as questions of law out of the order of the Tribunal. As regards question No. 3, since the question of charging of interest was part of the appeal relating to capital gains, it cannot be said that the appeal was filed only on the question of interest under Section 139. Hence, the appeal was certainly maintainable as laid down by several decisions of the different High Courts. Under these circumstances, even question No. 3 cannot be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. This income-tax reference, therefore, fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //