Skip to main content

Period of holding of inherited property to include duration of possession of asset by previous owner

IT : In computing long term capital gains on sale of inherited asset, indexed cost of acquisition is to be computed with reference to year first held by previous owne
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Commissioner of Income-tax -I
v.
Gautam Manubhai Amin
Section 48, read with section 49, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Computation of [Inherited property] - Assessment year 2006-07 - Whether for purpose of computing long-term capital gains in hands of an assessee who has acquired an asset under inheritance, indexed cost of acquisition of such capital asset is to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held said asset - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]
FACTS
 
■ The assessee inherited property along with his brother on the demise of their father on 23-12-1998. The property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 3.35 crores. The assessee calculated his share of capital gain at Rs. 21,24,438 taking the benefit of "Cost Inflation Index" as per the base year 1981-82.
■ The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment considering "Cost Inflation Index" as per the Financial Year 1998-99 on the ground that property had been acquired by the assessee on 23-12-1998. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that the "Cost Inflation Index" was to be taken with reference to 1-4-1981.
■ On appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
■ On Revenue's Appeal:
HELD
 
■ The issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of B.N. Vyas v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 141/25 Taxman 133 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjula J. Shah [2012] 204 Taxman 691/16 taxmann.com 42 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that for the purpose of computation of long term capital gain, 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. [Para 7]
■ In view of the above, no error has been committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue and confirming the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the indexed cost of acquisition from the base year, i.e., from 1-4-1981 and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,76,878 on account of long term capital gain. [Para 8]

Article referred : http://chartered-aaccountant-finance.blogspot.in/2013/10/aaykarbhavan-period-of-holding-of.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more