TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisition of the property, the cost inflation index of 100 (as on 1.4.1980) and cost inflation index of the year in which the property was sold by the assessee has to be taken into account and not the cost inflation index of the year in which the assessee first held the property - in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 7419/M/2010 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2012 - SHRI B.R. MITTAL, AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, JJ. Appellant by : Shri K.R. Vasudevan Respondent by : Shri Rajen J. Damani O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 24.8.2010 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The only dispute raised in this appeal is regarding computation of indexed cost of acquisition of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to 1.4.1981. The assessee therefore, adopted the cost of acquisition of the property at market value as on 1.4.1981 and applied cost inflation index of financial year 2006-07 and indexation as on 1.4.1981 for computing the indexed cost of acquisition. The AO, however, did not accept the computation made by the assessee. He, used the cost inflation index of the year in which the property or portion of the property was actually held by him in the computation of indexed cost of acquisition. According to him, the cost inflation index of the year in which the asset was first held by the assessee had to be used under the provisions of section 48(iii), and therefore, the assessee was not correct in using cost inflation index of 1.4.1981 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putation of indexed cost of acquisition of the property sold by the assessee during the year for the purpose of computation of long term capital gains. The said property had been acquired by the great grandfather of the assessee and upon his death in 1937, the property had devolved upon his two sons Shri Anantrai and Shri Batukbhai. Shri Annatrai was the grandfather of the assessee and upon his death the property had devolved upon other family members. The assessee had inherited 1/9th share since 3.8.1996; 1/36th share from his mother in January 1983; 1/9th share from his father in January 1999; and 1/24th share from his grandmother in 1987. In assessee had also surrendered 3/72 shares in the property to his sister, as per family settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty prior to 1.4.1981 and, therefore, while computing indexed cost of acquisition of the property, the cost inflation index of 100 (as on 1.4.1980) and cost inflation index of the year in which the property was sold by the assessee has to be taken into account and not the cost inflation index of the year in which the assessee first held the property. This view is supported by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Manjula Shah (supra), which has been followed by CIT(A). We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee. The order of CIT(A) is accordingly upheld. 4. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.6.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
