TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not modified by adopting the cost inflation index – Held that:- Legislature intended to tax the capital gains with indexation at 20 percent and to limit the tax on capital gains on transfer of listed securities or units or zero coupon bonds computed without indexation to 10 per cent thereof – Appeal dismissed – Decided against the Revenue. Decision in Mohanlal N. Shah (HUF) v. Asst. CIT [2008 (9) TMI 614 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed. - - - - - Dated:- 31-3-2011 - Order The order of the Bench was delivered by Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member).-By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has called into question correctness of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order dated December 10, 2009, in the matter of assessment under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computed under section 112 of the Act is to be increased by surcharge, if any, at specified rate on the tax so computed ?" Briefly stated the material facts are like this. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-company has declared long-term capital gain of Rs. 2,91,84,981 on sale of shares. In the working enclosed with the return of income, the assessee has separately computed capital gains for different shares and at the end has arrived at long-term capital gains chargeable at 11.3 percent The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has adopted the cost value of shares at index cost instead of adopting the actual cost of acquisition while arriving at long-term capital gain. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs.4,21,20,694 by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who following the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mohanlal N. Shah (HUF) v. Asst. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 380 (Mumbai), upheld the workings in respect of long-term capital gains submitted by the assessee at Rs. 35,78,015. The Assessing Officer is not satisfied and is in appeal before us. We find that, as the learned representatives fairly agree - even though the learned Departmental representative rather dutifully relies upon the stand of the Assessing Officer, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mohanlal N. Shah (HUF) v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
