Held, dismissing the appeal, that the High Court did not specifically frame the question of law whether the substitution of shares was taxable under section 28 of the Act, but the issue went to the very root of the matter, and the High Court was bound to consider it in view of the issue already framed by the Tribunal and the submissions advanced by both sides before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court. Such a question was incidental or collateral to the main issue, and the absence of a formal formulation would not vitiate the judgment of the High Court. First, the Tribunal itself had framed the substantial issue whether any income accrued to the assessees on the event of substitution of shares under the scheme of amalgamation. While answering this question in the negative, the Tribunal had left open the determination of whether the shares were held as investments or as stock-in-trade. Second, in appeal, the questions formulated by the High Court were wide enough to cover not only the application of section 47 but also the broader question of taxability of such substitution of shares under the Act. The High Court did not itself assess the income under section 28, but only clarified that if the shares were stock-in-trade, the exemption of section 47 would not apply, and the matter required reconsideration by the Tribunal. Third, there was no violation of natural justice. The High Court expressly recorded the preliminary objections and submissions of the assessees with respect to section 28 and dealt with them. Thus, the parties had full opportunity to address this aspect before remand. Accordingly, the High Court could not be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction under section 260A in making the observation on section 28 before remanding the matter. (AY.1997-98)