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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more