GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 19 - ITAT CHENNAI

2016 (8) TMI 19 - ITAT CHENNAI - TMI - Date of indexed cost of acquisition of the property devolved on the assessee on the date of death of the assessee’s father or the date on which the assessee’s father had become owner of the property - Held that:- When computing the capital gain arising on transfer of 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 y .....

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 transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied. See CIT v. Jaichander [2014 (11) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - ITA No. 712/Mds/2016 - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri S. Krishnan, FCA For The Respondent : Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vide order dated 27.2.2015, computed the total income at ₹ 64,20,600/-. The AO completed the assessment by taking indexed cost of acquisition only from the year in which the property devolved on the assessee. In other words, indexation point 632 pertaining to the year 2009-10 [year of death of father/husband Shri Padmanabhan 25.1.2010] and the property devolved in equal share along with his mother Smt. Vasantha Padmanabhan and brother Sri Suresh Padmanabhan) was only adopted as against in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

408/Mds/2015 and 582/Mds/2016 and vide order dated 6.6.2016, it was held as under : 11. As per sec.49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act, whereas the capital asset became the property of the assessee by succession, inheritance or devolution, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement incurred by the previous owner of the assessee, as the case may be. For the purpose of computation 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

frac12; months and it is resulted in short term capital gains. According to the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), the assessee became the owner of the property only on 20.11.2005 and there is no question of consideration of cost of asset in terms of sec.49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act. 12. It is to be noted that this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Mina Deogun v. ITO(19 SOT 183)(Kol.), after considering the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill 1992 and CBDT Circular No.636 dated 13.8.1992 (107 CTR(St .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is stipulated that in determining the period for which any capital asset is held by the assessee, in the case of a capital asset which becomes the property of the assessee by way of succession, inheritance etc., the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner shall also be included. 13. It is also to be noted that in the case of DCIT v. Kishore Kanungo (102 ITD 437), the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal, held that indexation is to be allowed only from the year in which the assessee be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee. Thus, it is a settled proposition that when two views are possible, a view which is in favour of the assessee, has to be adopted. In this regard, we make reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192). 14. In view of this, we hold that in the present case, the assessee inherited the property on 21.5.2002. The said property was purchased by the assessee s mother on 12.4.1960. After the death of the assessee s mother, the property .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndex in terms of sec.49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act. Same view was taken in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474)(Bombay). Consequently, the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.54 of the Act. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the case of Manjula J. Shah (supra) held that when computing the capital gain arising on transfer of 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c.54EC of the Act by ignoring the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court be deleted. 7. In this case, the assessee sold the house property on 14.11.2011 and made the following investment: In the FY 2011-12 On 01.12.2011 ₹ 10,00,000 drawn on ICICI Bank, Cheque dated 19.11.2011 On 14.02.2012 ₹ 40,00,000 drawn on ICICI Bank, Cheque dated 23.01.2012 In the FY 2012-13 On 20.04.2012 ₹ 25,00,000 drawn on ICICI Bank, Cheque dated 09.04.2012 On 14.02.2012 ₹ 25,00,000 drawn on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version