TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Held that:- The issue is no longer res-integra. Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Vitthalbhai Patel reported in (2013 (7) TMI 413 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) held that if the interpretation of the counsel for the Revenue was correct, this later reference to the cost of improvement borne by the assessee would not have been necessary since section 48 itself would take care of any improvement on the capital asset to be included for the cost of acquisition. The interpretation sought to be given by the Revenue would be unacceptable because there is no provision under which the cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee in cases such as gift on the date of acquisition of the property can be made and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on 01.08.1989. They were gifted by him to his son on 15.03.2009. The son i.e. the assessee sold the shares on 19.03.2009. It is in this respect, there is a divergence of stands by the assessee and the Revenue as to what would be the relevant date for ascertaining the cost of acquisition of shares for the purpose of indexation. 3. The issue is no longer resintegra . Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Vitthalbhai Patel reported in (2013) 37 taxmann.com 439 (Guj) , under similar factual background held and observed as under: 7. Under section 48 of the Act, thus capital gain is computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and not the previous owner. In our opinion, such interpretation cannot be accepted. We say so for the following reasons. Firstly, by virtue of a deeming fiction provided in subsection( 1) of section 49, cost of acquisition in hands of the assessee would be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it. It is for this purpose that we need to fall back on computation provision of section 48. When we do so, we work out the cost of acquisition of the asset in the hands of previous owner. While doing so, we cannot transpose the assessee in explanation (iii) of section 48. Doing so, would amount to falling short of giving full effect to the deeming fiction contained in subsection( 1) of section 49. To our opinion such dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
