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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more