ITO, INTNL TAXN WARD-1(2), CHENNAI vs. EASWARI SUKANYA KRISHNAN, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 403/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 July 2023AY 2019-202 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order follows a binding judicial precedent from the jurisdictional High Court, and the revenue could not controvert this position. Therefore, no fault was found in the order.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a property acquired through inheritance and claimed indexation of cost from FY 2001-02. The AO restricted indexation to FY 2014-15, the year of settlement, recomputing the capital gains.

What were the issues?

The key issue was determining the base year from which the benefit of indexation should be available for a property acquired by inheritance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to capital gains and indexation

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The sole grievance of the revenue in the captioned appeal is determination of base year from which the benefit of indexation would be available to the assessee. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee and accordingly, the appeal was disposed-off with the able assistance of Ld. Sr. DR who pleaded for restoration of assessment order. Upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

2.

The assessee sold certain property during this year for Rs.394.70 Lacs. The assessee claimed indexation of cost from financial year 2001- 02 and arrived at capital loss of Rs.48.35 Lacs. The said property was acquired by the assessee under inheritance from her mother by way of settlement deed dated 05.03.2015. The Ld. AO held that the assessee acquired the rights in the property only from the date of settlement and therefore, indexation benefit would be available only from financial year 2014-15. The assessee relied on the ruling of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT vs Saroja Naidu (128 Taxmann.com 127) to support the computations. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO allowed indexation from financial year 2014-15 and re-computed gains at Rs.210.09 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim in terms of cited decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

3.

We find that the adjudication in the impugned order follows binding judicial precedent of jurisdictional High Court. The revenue could not controvert this position. Therefore, we do not find any fault in the impugned order.

4.

The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 17th July, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →