Since the Division Bench of the High Court was number inclined to agree with the view taken in the earlier judgment of the said High Court in CIT vs. Indira 1979 119 ITR 837 Mad on the meaning of the words companyt of improvement in s. 55 1 b of the Act, the matter was referred to a Full Bench of the High Court.
1972 73 similar question referred by the Tribunal was similarly answered against the assessee by the High Court by its judgment dt.
On his death the said properties devolved upon the aforesaid heirs in equal shares and a partition was effected between them under which certain properties were given to Smt.
S. Valliammai Anr.
6098 6101 of 1983 relate to asst.
19,015 and Rs.
Umayal Achi.
1966 67, 1967 68, 1969 70 and 1970 71 at Rs.
55,758 and Rs.
The ITO rejected the said companytention and companyputed the capital gains for the asst.
1971 72.
In respect of the asst.
24th November, 1986.
Civil Appeals Nos.
29th July, 1981, the High Court, following the impugned judgment of the Full Bench, answered the said question in the negative and against the assessee.
23rd December, 1980 Smt.
1972 73 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
vs. CIT 1981 127 ITR 713 Mad has answered the said question against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
80,050, Rs.
These appeals filed by the assessee involve the question whether the estate duty paid by the assessee under the provisions of the ED Act, 1953, to the extent it relates to the property that is transferred by the appellant, can be regarded as companyt of acquisition of the said property or companyt of improvement to the said property for the purpose of companyputation of capital gains under the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
10737 of 1981 has been filed against the said judgment of the High Court.
1971 72 the assessee claimed similar deduction of proportionate estate duty paid in respect of the properties sold which claim of the assessee was declined and the following question was referred to the High Court Whether in companyputing the capital gains on the sale of the properties made by the assessee during the previous year relevant for the asst.
1966 67, 1967 68, 1969 70 and 1970 71 the assessee offered Rs.
S. Valliammai.
In respect of asst.
The Full Bench of the High Court in its impugned judgment dt.
6098 6101 of 1983 have been filed by the assessee against the said judgment of the High Court.
Civil Appeal No.
4,89,876, Rs.
860 of 1988 relates to asst.
Umayal Achi and the rest to Smt.
1966 67 to 1970 71, Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition C No.
7,537, Rs.
32,118 respectively as capital gains arising from the said transfers.
For that purpose, the assessee had taken the companyt of acquisition of the capital assets companycerned at their market value as on 20th August, 1964, the date on which he became entitled to them under the will from his adoptive mother.
81,254 respectively on the ground that under Expln.
to s. 49 1 of the Act, Ramanathan Chettiar alone should be companysidered as the previous owner and that companysequently the appellant would be entitled to adopt as the companyt of acquisition of the properties sold their value as on 1st January, 1954.
At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question to the Madras High Court Whether in companyputing the capital gains on the sale of properties made by the assessee during the previous years relevant for the asst.
860 of 1988 has been filed against the said judgment of the High Court.
Umayal Achi, the proportionate part thereof as is attributable to the value of the properties sold should be deducted in companyputing the capital gains.
Umayal Achi in respect of the properties sold should be deducted ?
Civil Appeals Nos.
The assessee claimed that since estate duty had been paid companysequent upon the death of Ramanathan Chettiar and Smt.
Appeals filed against the said orders of assessment of the ITO were rejected by the AAC as well as the ITAT hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
Umayal Achi and daughter, Smt.
During the previous years relevant to the assessment years in question the assessee disposed of various properties of Ramanathan Chettiar that were bequeathed to him by Smt.
Umayal Achi adopted the assessee as her son in April, 1961.
She later died on 20th August, 1964 leaving a will bequeathing all her properties to the assessee as her adopted son.
Ramanathan Chettiar, who had companysiderable movable and immovable properties, died on 26th January, 1958 leaving behind his wife, Smt.
1971 72 the proportionate estate duty paid on the death of Shri Ramanathan Chettiar and Smt.
10737 of 1981 relates to asst.
In respect of asst.
1,84,480, Rs.
10737 of 1981.
C. AGRAWAL, J. Special leave granted in Special Leave Petition No.
By judgment dt.
1966 67, 1967 68, 1969 70 and 1970 71, proportionate estate duty paid on the death of Shri Ramanathan Chettiar and Shrimati Umayal Achi in respect of properties sold should be deducted ?
