Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Vishnubhai Bapubhai Patel Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-8 (2) , Ahmedabad

2015 (6) TMI 893 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Computation of long term capital gains - whether there is not cost of acquisition ascertained in this case u/s.49(1)(i) in the hands of previous owner for computing impugned capital gains? - two additional grounds that stamp duty valuation as stated on the partition deed has been wrongly adopted as fair market value as on the date of acquisition of the property And the impugned long term capital gains have been wrongly assessed in his hands instead of that in case of eponymous HUF - Held that:- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssesseeís arguments challenging assessment of capital gains in his hands rather than HUFs fail.

Valuation of the property on the basis of partition deed dated 16.9.1975 - Held that:- As already narrated that this asset came from an earlier HUF after a registered partition. The value of the total assets was determined at ₹ 2,67,750/- and the impugned capital asset was valued at ₹ 55,050/-. We reiterate that that itís a duly registered document enjoying presumption of correc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erty sold as on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of computation of capital gains - Held that:- The authorities below have not granted him the benefit of appreciation of the assetís value for the period from 1975 to 1.4.1981 in computing long term capital gains. The Revenue fails to rebut this factual position. We deem it appropriate to observe that the impugned assessment year is 2008-09. Much water has flown down the stream. Thus, instead of remanding this issue back, we feel that larger interest justi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This assessee s appeal for A.Y.2008-09, arises from order of the CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad dated 30.09.2011, passed in case no.CIT(A)-XIV/Wd.8(2)/82/10-11, upholding long term capital gains addition of ₹ 9,71,675/- in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961, in short the Act . 2. The assessee is an individual. He sold the capital asset in question on 29.1.2008 for ₹ 12.75 lacs. He did not admit any capital gains. The Assessing Of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

capital asset in question in said partition deed. The same stated its value to be ₹ 55,050/-. The Assessing Officer in these facts was of the view that cost of acquisition had to be taken as that ascertained in the abovestated partition deed. He also observed that the assessee had not exercised his option regarding valuation of his capital asset u/s.55(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer accordingly adopted value of the sold as ₹ 55,050/- u/s.49(1)(ii)(a) and computed long term capi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vs. CIT [281 ITR 19, Gujarat].The claim of the appellant is on a wrong belief. In the case of Mandharsinh P. Jadeja, the facts show that the property was acquired by him by way of conquest and, therefore, the cost of acquisition in that case was NIL and accordingly the capital gain could not be applied to the consideration received on account of sale. In contrast to this, the appellant's property is an inherited property which was acquired by the forefathers of the appellant long time back .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e with the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be taken M that the cost of acquisition is NIL. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant regarding explanation to Section 49(1) is, not accepted. The appellant has further submitted that the practical applicability of section 55 sub section fails because in the appellant's case, the date of acquisition by previous owner (as contemplated u/s. 49(1) r.w. explanation) is rot available. The argument of the appellant has-been effectively dealt with by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch the capital asset became the property of the previous owner". The provisions of section are very clear. The A.O. has correctly applied the same and taken the COST of acquisition as the fair market value of the property on the date of partition. The fair market value has been determined by the sub - registrar for the purpose of valuation of stamp duty on the date of partition i.e. the date on which the appellant became the owner of the property. During the course of assessment proceedings .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of land is upheld. The ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant has also mentioned in the written submission dated 02/09/2011 that without prejudice to the earlier submission regarding the capital gain, the appellant acquired the HUF property which is evident from the deed of partition dated 06/09/75 and, therefore, Vishnubhai B. Patel (HUF) is liable for capital gain and not Vishnubhai B. Patel (Individual). The argument has been mentioned in the written submission as ground No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t there is not cost of acquisition ascertained in this case u/s.49(1)(i) in the hands of previous owner for computing impugned capital gains. He has also filed two additional grounds that stamp duty valuation as stated on the partition deed (supra) has been wrongly adopted as fair market value as on the date of acquisition of the property. And also that the impugned long term capital gains have been wrongly assessed in his hands instead of that in case of eponymous HUF. The Revenue objects to ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

term capital gains in its case. He has replied in negative. Nor does he place on record HUF s record showing his asset s ownership in the past. The case file demonstrates that the said HUF holds a PAN (page no.78). Therefore, we observe that the assessee is not entitled to shift assessment of impugned capital gains in HUF s hands. Therefore, the assessee s arguments challenging assessment of capital gains in his hands rather than HUFs fail. 5. Now, we come to next argument of the assessee chall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version