9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of learned CIT(Appeals)-30, Mumbai dated 18-11-2011 and the solitary issue involved therein relating to assessee's claim for deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition taking into consideration the holding period of the previous owner of the property has been raised by way of the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who received 1/11th share in the property on death of her father Mr. A. Rehman A. Ahmed in the year 2002. The said property was comprising of a bungalow and a two floor building. It was sold by all the co-owners including the assessee in the month of March, 2008 for a total consideration of Rs.23.26 crores in which the assessee received Rs.2,11, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee for the indexed cost of acquisition taking the financial year 1981-82 as the base year relying on the decision of Mumbai Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Manjula J. Shah reported in 35 SOT 105 (Mumbai) (S.B.) wherein a similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by holding as under : "For the reasons given above, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue, the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the learned representatives of both the sides have agreed that the issue involved in this appeal of the Revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
