Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Gokul Dass Pradeep Kumar Rathi. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....1958 s.26 jaipur bench - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....he submitted that following question of law arises out of the order of the tribunal which requires to be answered by this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the value of shares held by the assessee in m/s. krishna limited, beawar should be taken on the basis of yield method ?'2. this point was also subject-matter of an application filed under s. 27(3) of the gt act in d.b. wt ref. appln. no. 45/1990. cwt vs. seth gokuldas pradeep kumar rathi, [since reported in (1992) 105 ctr (raj) 113], wherein this court relying on the decisions of the cwt vs . mahadeo jalan : [1972]86itr621(sc) ; cgt vs . smt. kusumben d. mahadevia : [1980]122itr38(sc) and cgt vs . executors and trustees of the estate of late ambalal sarabhai : [1988]170itr144(sc) observed that the method of valuation should have been yield method and not break-up method, in a going-concern. therefore, the consistent view of the honble supreme court and this court is that it would be on the basis of the dividends received. while deciding the identical question in an identical case, referred to above, by which the present case is squarely covered wherein.....

Judgment:

ORDER

BY THE COURT :

This application has been find under s. 26(3) of the GT Act in respect of asst. yr. 1976-77 arising out of the GTA No. 9/Jp/87 dt. 21st August, 1987. An application under s. 26(1) of the GT Act was filed before the Tribunal which was rejected on 18th August, 1988, hence this application. In the application filed by the petitioner he submitted that following question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal which requires to be answered by this Court :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of shares held by the assessee in M/s. Krishna Limited, Beawar should be taken on the basis of yield method ?'

2. This point was also subject-matter of an application filed under s. 27(3) of the GT Act in D.B. WT Ref. Appln. No. 45/1990. CWT vs. Seth Gokuldas Pradeep Kumar Rathi, [since reported in (1992) 105 CTR (Raj) 113], wherein this Court relying on the decisions of the CWT vs . Mahadeo Jalan : [1972]86ITR621(SC) ; CGT vs . Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia : [1980]122ITR38(SC) and CGT vs . Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Late Ambalal Sarabhai : [1988]170ITR144(SC) observed that the method of valuation should have been yield method and not break-up method, in a going-concern. Therefore, the consistent view of the Honble Supreme Court and this Court is that it would be on the basis of the dividends received. While deciding the identical question in an identical case, referred to above, by which the present case is squarely covered wherein there was the same assessee as is here also, this Court has decided the question against the Revenue in favour of the assessee.

3. Consequently, we answer the question against the Revenue. We, therefore, reject the application and refuse to call for the reference. The assessee would be entitled to the cost of Rs. 600.