The assessment year is 1971 72, the accounting year being 1970 71.
The impugned judgment in so far as it answers the first question has been overruled by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and others vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai Co. Ltd. and other 1996 7 SCC 569.
While the first question was referred at the instance of the revenue, the second question was at the instance of the assessee.
Both the question were, however, answered by the High Court in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
76,680/ .
This the assessee did on revaluing the property as on January 1, 1954.
9021/ in the case of Calicut property and Rs.
78/ on the sale of this property.
The assessee sold its Mangalore building for Rs.
Its original companyt as adjusted came to Rs.
The assessee has incurred an additional expenditure of Rs.
IN respect of these buildings also depreciation has been claimed and allowed in the previous years.
The judgment is number reported in 1982 135 ITR 19 F.B. The following two questions were decided by the High Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting Rs.1,260/ towards house rent under Section 40 a v of the Income tax Act, 1961?
This was rejected by the revenue authorities.
The Income Tax Officer, therefore, substituted the original value an arrived at a capital gain of Rs.
The assessee then went to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal but at the instance of the assessee referred the aforesaid second question for the decision of the High Court.
In companyputing the capital gains the assessee showed a capital loss of Rs.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL N.T. NO.
Accordingly the answer to this question has to be given in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
The stand taken by the assessee was that it had the option under Section 55 2 i of the Act either to adopt the written down value of the building or the value of the building as on January 1, 1954 and it has chosen the latter.
2,25,000/ .
44, 713/ .
The Calicut Weaving Factory was sold for Rs.
On appeal filed by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income Tax Officer.
Bombay decision is reported in Goculdas Dossa and Co. and other vs. J.P. Shah and other 1995 211 ITR 706.
2979 OF 1982 J U D G M E N T P. Wadhwa, J. These two appeals by certificate under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act are directed against the judgment dated November 27, 1981 of the Kerala High Court.
the Income Tax Officer, however, took the view that the assessee did number have the right to substitute the value as on January 1, 1954 because the assets were depreciable assets to which Section 50 1 applied which was a special provision in respect of depreciable assets and the provision as companytained in Section 55 2 i allowing option which was general provision was number applicable in the case of depreciable assets.
During the period relevant to the assessment year 1971 72 the assesee sold some of these properties on which it had already claimed depreciation.
It is the second question in which arguments were addressed before us.
Here again the assessee revalued the building as on January 1, 1954 and on that basis showed the capital gains at Rs.
The assessee filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal but since there was a challenge to the validity of Section 50 writ petition was filed in the High Court.
The assessee had been allowed in the previous year.
1,46,320/ in the case of Mangalore buildings.
He was also of the view that the assessee did number have the right to substitute value as on January 1, 1954 in respect of depreciable assets.
The assessee, a limited companypany, was possessed of companysiderable properties at Calicut and Mangalore.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee did number have the right of substituting the market value as on 1.1.54 in respect of depreciable assets?
As numbered above depreciation has been allowed on the value of the property in the earlier years.
It owned these properties right from 1920 onwards.
979/ on this property.
