Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 546 - AT - Income TaxComputation of capital gains - adoption of the indexed cost of acquisition with reference to the year in which previous owner first held the asset and not the year in which the assessee became owner of the asset by way of inheritance - Held that:- The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case CIT Vs. Manjula J.Shah [2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] held that “while computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee under a gift, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of the asset.” Since the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has only followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in arriving at his decision, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance being investment claimed as deduction under section 54 - Held that:- The assessee had made the payment to the builder and it was beyond her control to compel the builder to comply with the terms and conditions of the initial agreement she entered with the builder for constructing her residential flat. Therefore, following case Smt. Shasi Varma Vs. CIT reported in [1996 (3) TMI 65 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court ] we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled for the deduction under section 54 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of the claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act in respect of investment in house property outside India - Held that:- On perusing the provisions of section 54 of the Act we find that the benefit of section 54 of the Act was specifically denied for any residential house property acquired outside India by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Before that no such restriction existed in the Act. The relevant case before us is for the assessment year 2010-11. In this period, the assessee had the benefit of few Tribunal decisions in her favour on the issue which she relied while claiming the benefit of section 54 of the Act. Further, as pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Leena Jugalkishor Shah Vs. ACIT [2016 (12) TMI 351 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is also in favour of the assessee on the identical circumstances. Thus no hesitation to hold the issue in favour of the assessee who had invested the sale proceeds of her asset in a residential house property in California(USA). Therefore, we hereby direct the learned Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of section 54 - Decided in favour of assessee
|