9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that while computing the capital gain on the sale of inherited property, 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 year in which the assessee became the owner of the asset. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adopting a 'literal interpretation' in the case of tax statute whereas the Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Act clearly mentions that for computing the indexed cost of acquisition, the base year has to be first year in which the asset was held by the "assessee" and not the previous owner of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee for the reason that the facts in the case of Manjula J. Shah are distinguishable, because, in that case the asset was required by way of a gift, whereas in the assessee's case it is received as a request. Also the department is an appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above case. Also the AO relied on a literal reading of Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Act and decided the issue against the assessee by adopting indexation of financial year 2010-11 as the denominator, as against the contention of the assessee that denominator adopted be the index for the financial year 1981-82. Thus the AO arrived at the LTCG of Rs. 11,36,00,805/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was deemed to have held the asset from January 29, 1993, to June 30, 2003, by including the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner and, accordingly, held liable for long-term capital gains tax. While computing the capital gains, the indexed cost of acquisition had to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of the asset. 6.1 The SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision in Manjula J. Shah (supra) has been dismissed, though on tax effect, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.09.2018. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arun Shungloo Trust (supra), has also held that the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
