TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o tax the gains arising on transfer of a capital acquired under a gift or will by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner in determining the period for which the said asset was held by the assessee, then that object cannot be defeated by excluding the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner while determining the indexed cost of acquisition of that asset to the assessee - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 1076 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2013 - M. R. Shah And R. P. Dholaria,JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, Advocate ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said bungalow was in coownership of the assessee and her husband late Shri Rohit J Gandhi. In 2004 after the demise of her husband, assessee got the full ownership of the bungalow which she sold on 18th April 2008 to Smt. Manjulaben J Patel for full consideration of Rs.2,45,00,000/. According to the AO, the assessee got full ownership of the bungalow only in FY 2003-04 after the demise of her husband and therefore, assessee was asked for the justification regarding the use of Cost Inflation Index of the year in which the said bungalow was constructed and not in the year in which the said passage of ownership of bungalow were passed on her in the year i.e. in which the said ownership were first held by the assessee for computing the indexe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the learned ITAT, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the aforesaid proposed substantial question of law. 3.0. We have heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned ITAT has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J. Shah (supra) and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Arun Sungloo Trust (supra). On considering the facts of the case on hand and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J Shah(supra), we are of the opinion that issue / question raised is squarely covered against the revenue by the decision of the Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
