from the sale of shares in three companypanies it secured a gross long term capital gain of rs.
he set off the long term capital loss against the long term capital gain in the first instance and then applied the deductions provided by section 80 t to the balance figure of rs.
181671.00 the income tax officer did number agree with said mode of computation.
from the judgment and order dated 31.1.89 of the madras high court in tax case number 900 of 1979 n. shukla r. satish for ms.
464925 less deduction under section 80 t b ii at 50 rs.
96583 balance of long term capital gains of the year rs.
229963 aggrieved by the order of assessment the assessee preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate assistant commissioner.
the assessment year concerned is 1973 74 the relevant previous year being the financial year 1972 73.
96583.00 profits rs.
561508.00 less deduction under rs.
5.61508 less long term capital loss of the same year rs.
96583.
on further appeal however the tribunal agreed with his mode of companyputation.
276254.00 of shares rs.
565508.00 lessdeduction under section 80 t b ii at 50 rs.
thereupon the revenue asked for and obtained the said reference.
561508.
464925.
the assessee computed the capital gains on the aforesaid transaction of sale of shares in the following manner gross long term capital gains rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 4851 nt of 1990.
181671 companyputed in the manner set out in paragraph 14 of the order of the tribunal?
his companyputation was in the following terms gross long term capital gain rs.
5000.00 section 80 t b rs.
278254.00 less loss on sale rs.
229962 capital gains included in the total income rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by p. jeevan reddy.j.
the assessee is a registered firm.
however in the sale of shares in six other companypanies it sustained a long term capital loss in a sum of rs.
a. ramachandran and mrs.
during the said previous year the assessee sold shares held by him in several companypanies.
janaki ramachandran for the respondent.
a. subhashini for the appellant.
this appeal is preferred by the assessee against the judgment of the madras high companyrt answering the question referred to it under section 256 1 of the income tax act in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
