TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further emphasis and more so when there is no any ambiguity therein. We thus adopt literal interpretation of the above clause to conclude that cost of acquisition of the asset includes assessee’s interest cost as well since incurred on funds borrowed for the purpose of acquisition of the capital asset sold having direct nexus with the same. The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal is accepted. - ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) And S. S. Godara (Judicial Member) For the Assessee : Ketan H. Shah, A.R. For the Revenue : James Kurian, Sr. D.R. ORDER S. S. Godara (Judicial Member) This assessee s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 (Mad). Latter two above stated decisions mainly relied upon hon ble apex court s decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC) that although the provisions in Act did not specify actual cost, the same has to be construed in the sense that no commercial man would misunderstand. Their lordships observe in other words that the said term has to be interpreted in accountancy parlance in commerce and industry. Ld. CIT(A) still upholds Assessing Officer s opinion. He first of all observes that the above non jurisdictional high court s decision are not binding as per this tribunal co-ordinate bench decision in ITO vs. Vikram Sadanand Hoskote case [2007] 18 SOT 130 (Mumbai) deciding the very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbay high court s decision in CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom.) to hold that even judgments of hon ble non jurisdictional high courts bind this tribunal. The CIT(A) s latter reason(supra) thus has no merit. We are therefore of the opinion that ld. CIT(A) s reasoning narrated in preceding paragraphs is not sustainable. 5. It is further evident to us that Section 48(ii) of the Act specifically postulates cost of acquisition of the asset instead of mere cost of the asset for the purpose of computing capital gains. We reiterate trite proposition of law that expressions used in a fiscal statute are to be interpreted without supplying any further emphasis and more so when there is no any ambiguity therein. We thus adopt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
