Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AAR Income Tax - 2011 (8) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 32 - AAR - Income TaxCapital gain - assessees and assets covered by the first proviso to Section 48 of the Income-tax Act are not entitled to the benefit of the proviso occurring after clause (d) of Section112(1) of the Income-tax Act - both for a non-resident and a resident indexation regarding bonds and debentures is excluded - Does it follow from this that even those assessees who are entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 48 and the protection against inflation regarding specified assets, have again to be given a second benefit - an assessee not coming under the first proviso to Section 48, in respect of specified assets is given protection against inflation which has already been given to a non-resident, in respect of specified assets, thus achieving a level playing field - To infer from this that assets of a non-resident coming under the first proviso to Section 48 has also to be held to be within the proviso in Section 112 seems to be unwarranted on the scheme of Section 48 and the language of the first two provisos thereto - The tax payable on long term Capital Gains arising to CUHL on sale of equity shares of CIL by it will not be 10% of the amount of Capital Gains as per the proviso to Section 112 - Ruling is given
|