Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur Vs. L. Busappa Kumar
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 596 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24374 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24374 of 1995)
Petitioner: Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur
Respondent: L. Busappa Kumar
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 596 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24374 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24374 of 1995)
Judges: J.S. VERMA & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 1997
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income Tax Act |
Section 256(2) – Explanation inserted in Section 2(1-A) with retrospective effect. Held as Explanation added to Section 2(1-A) of the Income Tax Act by Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect, it overcomes the effect of earlier decisions. Appeal allowed. (Paras 3, 4)
Income Tax Act |
Section 256(2) – Explanation inserted in Section 2(1-A) with retrospective effect. Held as Explanation added to Section 2(1-A) of the Income Tax Act by Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect, it overcomes the effect of earlier decisions. Appeal allowed. (Paras 3, 4)
Cases Reffered:
:
1. Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom)
2. J.Raghottama Reddy v. ITO (1988) 169 ITR 174 (AP)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the High Court’s order rejecting the application made under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act to call for a reference on the following question of law, namely,
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the ITO to exclude the capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural lands from the assessment?”
3. The High Court rejected the application in view of the decisions in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom) and J. Raghottama Reddy v. ITO (1988) 169 ITR 174 (AP). However, an explanation has been inserted in sub-section (1-A) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1970 to overcome the effect of those decisions. This being so, the aforesaid question of law does arise out of the Tribunal’s order.
4. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with the result that the application made under Section 256(2) of the Act for reference of the above question of law is allowed.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the High Court’s order rejecting the application made under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act to call for a reference on the following question of law, namely,
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the ITO to exclude the capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural lands from the assessment?”
3. The High Court rejected the application in view of the decisions in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom) and J. Raghottama Reddy v. ITO (1988) 169 ITR 174 (AP). However, an explanation has been inserted in sub-section (1-A) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1970 to overcome the effect of those decisions. This being so, the aforesaid question of law does arise out of the Tribunal’s order.
4. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with the result that the application made under Section 256(2) of the Act for reference of the above question of law is allowed.
