Skip to main content

Property from ‘Will’ eligible for cost indexation from first owner’s acquisition date

Cause Title : Income Tax Officer vs Sohrab Fali Mehta, ITA No.55/Mum/2023, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

Date of Judgment/Order : 15/03/2023

Corum : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member

Citied: CIT us. Manjula J Shah (355 ITR 474), Bombay High Court

Background

This appeal was filed by the Dept. against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejecting the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer.

The matter relates to indexation on capital application against sale of a property. The assessee claimed the benefit from the date of acquisition of the property by the previous owner (his mother) which was in 01/04/1981. 

The main plea of the ld. AO is that the mother of the assessee died on 09/03/2008 and therefore, the assessee became entitled to share in the property through the will of the mother and hence, the assessee can be allowed indexation only from F.Y.2007-08 and not from F.Y.1981-82. The ld. AO relied on the Circular No.636 issued by CBDT in this regard.

Judgment

Referring to the judgment in Manjula (supra), the Appellate Tribunal decided that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court referred to supra wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court after due consideration of CBDT Circular No.636 had held that while computing capital gains arising of transfer of capital asset acquired by the assessee under the will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with respect to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not in the year in which assessee became the owner of the asset.

The tribunal held that assessee would be entitled for indexed cost of acquisition benefit from F.Y.1981-82 on the cost of Rs.33,82,900/-.

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