SHRI GAJENDRA LAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 726/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 January 2023AY 2019-2011 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the benefit of indexation for computing capital gains on assets acquired through inheritance or gift must be calculated with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset, not the year the current assessee became the owner. The reasoning is that Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deems the cost of acquisition to be the cost for which the previous owner acquired it. A harmonious reading of Sections 48 and 49, supported by judgments like CIT v Manjula J Shah and CIT v. Smt. Kaveri Thimmaiah, clarifies that for indexed cost of acquisition, the relevant year is the first year the asset was held by the previous owner. The Tribunal found that in this case, the assessee was the first holder, followed by his father, and then inheritance. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for indexation benefit from the initial acquisition dates. The AO was directed to re-compute the capital gains accordingly. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Gajendra Lal, filed a revised return for Assessment Year 2019-20, claiming a refund of Rs. 94,51,699. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee transferred 12,94,667 equity shares of IHHR Hospital Private Ltd. on November 12, 2018, for Rs. 1,29,46,670. The AO observed discrepancies in the claimed indexed cost of acquisition and the supporting documents, particularly regarding the date of acquisition and purchase/sale values. The AO issued a Draft Assessment Order. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the AO to re-compute capital gains by allowing the cost of acquisition as on the date of the assessee's father's death. The AO passed the final assessment order on July 19, 2022, allowing indexed cost of acquisition as of January 1, 2016, resulting in a capital loss of Rs. 72,03,026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order is bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction in issuing notice under section 143(2) by the ACIT, National e-Assessment Centre-1(2)(2)? - Assessee's contention: The ACIT, National e-Assessment Centre-1(2)(2) lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 143(2), rendering the assessment order invalid. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the AO erred in incorrectly computing the indexed cost of acquisition of equity shares, specifically regarding the date from which indexation benefit should be allowed? - Assessee's contention: The benefit of indexation should be allowed from the year the shares were first acquired by the previous owner (assessee or his father), not from the date of inheritance (January 1, 2016). The assessee relied on CIT v Manjula J Shah, CIT v. Smt. Kaveri Thimmaiah, CIT v Saroj Naidu, CIT v Smt. Asha Machaiah, and CIT v Smt. Daisy Devaiah. - Revenue's contention: The cost of acquisition should be considered as on the date of death of the assessee's father, and the date of inheritance (January 1, 2016) should be used for indexation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45,Section 48,Section 49(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C’’BENCH: BANGALORE

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. (DR)
Pronounced: 20.01.2023

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-C’’BENCH: BANGALORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (IT) A No. 726/Bang/2022 AssessmentYear:2019-20 Shri GAJENDRA LAL Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 2B, Sunny Side Ward International Taxation Apartments, 1(2), Bangalore, No. 04, Bride Street, BMTC Building, 80ft. Road, Vs. Langford Town, 6th Block, Koramangala Bangalore – 560 025, Bangalore 560095 PAN NO : ABMPL0526F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sudheendra, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. (DR) : 20.12.2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 O R D E R

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by CIT(A) dated 15.9.2022 on the following grounds of appeal:

1.

General Ground 1.1. The orders passed by learned Income Tax Officer, Ward International Tax 1 (2), Bangalore (hereinafter referred as "AO" for brevity), and the learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as "DRP" for brevity) ("AO" and "DRP" collectively referred as "lower authorities" for brevity) are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 1.2. The lower authorities have erred in issuing directions / passing the assessment order, without considering all the submissions and/or without appreciating properly the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable.

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 2 of 12 2.Ground relating to issue and service of notice under section 143(2) 2.1. The ACIT, National e-Assessment Centre-1(2)(2) erred in issuing the notice under section 143(2) without appreciating that it had no jurisdiction to make an assessment in the hands of the Appellant. There being no other notice under section 143(2) issued and served by the residual jurisdiction (i.e., International Tax charges) the impugned assessment order passed by the learned AO based on a notice without jurisdiction is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3.Ground relating to the adjustment to indexed cost of acquisition 3.1. The learned AO erred in incorrectly computing the indexed cost of acquisition of equity shares of IHPL at Rs. 201,49,696 as against a sum of Rs. 4,12,21,550 claimed by the Appellant. 3.2. The lower authorities erred in concluding that the cost of acquisition of shares 'as on the date of death of the assessee's father' should be considered as the cost of acquisition of shares for the purposes of computing capital gains. 3.3 The learned AO erred in considering the date of inheritance (i.e. 01.01.2016) as the date of acquisition of impugned shares for the purposes of computing the benefit of indexation, without appreciating that: (a) the impugned shares were originally purchased by the Appellant / his father on various dates between FY 2001-02 and FY 2010-11; (b) as per section 2(42A) read with section 49(1), the benefit of indexation in case of gifted or inherited property is available from the year of acquisition of such property by previous owner; and (c) on facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellant is eligible for the benefit of indexation from the date of actual purchase of shares and not the date of inheritance from father. 3.4 The learned AO erred in determining the long-term capital loss eligible to be carried forward at Rs. 72,03,026 as against a long-term capital loss of Rs. 2,82,74,880 claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant should be entitled to carry forward long term capital loss amounting to Rs. 2,82,74,880. 4. Prayer:- 4.1 The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 3 of 12 such relief arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned supra and all consequential relief thereto. 4.2 The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant herein are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. The appellant prays accordingly.”

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non- resident filed return of income on 27.07.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 15,39,040/-, subsequently the return was revised on 18.11.2019 claiming a refund of Rs. 94,51,699/-. The return was processed and refund was granted and issued on 15.06.2020 of Rs. 99,06,890/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. From the computation of capital gain it was observed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the assessee had transferred 12,94,667 equity shares of IHHR Hospital Private Ltd. , New Delhi at Rs. 10/- per share on 12.11.2018 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,29,46,670/-. The assessee filed for computation of capital the following documents:- 1. Copy of share certificates. 2.Copy of Memorandum of Transfers. 3. Copy of Bank Account statement reflecting the sale consideration.

3.

On perusal of the above documents, the AO noticed some discrepancies that as per memorandum of transfer the assessee acquired 12,94,667 shares on 26.10.2016 and indexed cost was claimed for the financial year 2001-02 for 8,68,101 shares, F.Y. 2009-10 for 1,73,769 and F.Y. 2010-11 for 2,52,797 shares. The above documents were also not reflecting the purchase and sales value of shares, therefore, the AO concluded that the benefit of cost of acquisition cannot be granted to the assessee. The AO also

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 4 of 12 observed that the some documents were not provided, viz., details of acquisition of shares, copy of transfer deed, supporting documents for payment of stamp duty, copy of MCA ( detail of shareholding), determining the FMV of unquoted shares & contact details of transferee with PAN and opportunity was provided to the assessee for filling the same. Accordingly he passed Draft Assessment Order on 30.09.2021.

4.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed objection before the DRP as many as 9 objections and submitted documents and additional evidences too. The ld. DRP observed from the documents/evidences files by the assessee that prior to gift made to the father, the assessee had paid Rs. 1,21,10,634/- to acquire 10,23,993 shares and in addition to this the assessee’s father had acquired 2,70,674 share at cost of Rs. 61,68,019/-. Upon gifting and subsequently reacquiring the shares through inheritance, the assessee had acquired a total of 12,94,667 shares. The aggregate cost paid towards these share was Rs. 1,82,78,653/-. From the documents submitted by the assessee that the assessee was himself the last previous owner of 10,23,993 shares and assessee’s father was last previous owner of balance 2,70,674 shares. The ld. DRP observed that the shares were acquired by inheritance in terms of the will executed by his father , the cost of acquisition of shares in the present case is governed by section 49(1)(ii)/(iii)(a) of the Act. and directed to AO for re-computation of capital gain/loss on sale of shares of the assessee by allowing cost of acquisition as on the date of death of the assessee’s father and passed the order on 20.06.2022.

5.

The AO passed final assessment order on 19/07/2022 by allowing the indexed cost of acquisition on 01.01.2016 of 12,94,667 shares assuming that the date of acquisition was

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 5 of 12 01.01.2016, applied the cost inflation index of 254 and computed the cost of acquisition at Rs 2,01,49,6996/- resulting the loss of Rs. 72,03,026/- ( Rs. 1,29,46,670 – Rs.2,01,49,696).

6.

Aggrieved from the final assessment order, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The ld. authorized representative (AR) reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the AO/DRP has not given cost of indexed benefit since its inception when the shares were first acquired by the previous to previous owner assessee. The shares were first acquired by the assessee thereafter it was gifted to his father and after the demise of his father as per the “WILL” dated 02.10.2011 written by his father, the shares were transferred in the name of the assessee, therefore, the indexed cost of acquisition should be allowed since the financial year 2002 to 2010 for 10,23,993 shares and in respect of 2,70,674 shares indexation benefit should be applicable for the 2010 and 2011 as and when the shares have been acquired. In support of his arguments the AR relied on the following judgments. 1. CIT v Manjula J Shah [ 2013] 355 ITR 474 ( Bom.) 2.CIT v. Smt. Kaveri Thimmaiah [ 2014] 369 ITR 81 ( Kar). 3.CIT v Saroj Naidu[2021]128 taxmann.com 127 (Mad.) 4. CIT v Smt. Asha Machaiah 48 taxmann.com 381(Kar). 5. CIT v Smt. Daisy Devaiah 50 taxmann.com 234 (Kar)

7.

The ld. AR further submitted that the as per section 49(1)(ii), where the capital asset became the property of the assessee, inter alia, under a gift or will , cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it. As per the explanation of section 49(1) , the expression “ previous owner of the property “ in relation to any capital asset owned by an assessee means the last previous owner of the capital

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 6 of 12 asset who acquired it by a mode of acquisition other than that referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause(iii) or clause (iv) of this sub-section.

8.

The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the cost of benefit for indexation should be taken from the year in which the assessee held the shares after the death of his father which is 2016. The lower authorities has rightly allowed as per the provision of the Act. , therefore the order of the lower authorities should not be disturbed.

9.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire materials available on records and order of the authorities below, I observed that the assessee gifted to his father 10,23,993 shares of IHHR HOSPITATILITY Pvt. Ltd. (IHPL) on 04.12.2010 which was purchased since 2002 to 2010 at cost of Rs. 1,21,10,634/-. The assessee’s father had also purchased 2,70,674 shares of the same company at cost of Rs. 61,68,019/-. From the facts as narrated above I noticed that the assessee has received the 12,94,667 (10,23,993 + 2,70,674) shares on 01.01.2016 from his father under “WILL” dated 02.10.2011 after passing away of Shri Robendra Kundan (assessee’s father). As per the Board meeting dated 26.10.2016, the shares were duly recorded in the name of the assessee. These all shares were sold in the impugned AY at Rs.1,29,46,670/- by the assessee and the capital gain / loss was computed by the assessee of Rs. 2,82,98,838/- taking the indexed cost of acquisition since the shares were first acquired i. e. 2002 to 2010 and 2011 & 2012 including the date in which the father was also acquired the share, but the AO considered the date of acquisition in which the assessee received the shares under the “WILL” and the loss was determined at Rs. 72,03,026/-. The sole issue raised by the assessee is that the cost of indexation benefit

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 7 of 12 has not been granted by the AO/DRP since the shares were first allotted by the IHPL to the assessee where as the cost of acquisition has been accepted. The similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Manjula Shah, cited supra, the relevant parts of the judgment are as under:-

“16. It is the contention of the revenue that since the indexed cost of acquisition as per clause (iii) of the Explanation to Section 48 of the Act has to be determined with reference to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee and in the present case, as the assessee held the asset with effect from 1/2/2003, the first year of holding the asset would be FY 2002-03 and accordingly, the cost inflation index for 2002-03 would be applicable in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. 17. We see no merit in the above contention. As rightly contended by Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the assessee, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be determined with reference to the cost inflation index for the first year in which the capital asset was 'held by the assessee'. Since the expression 'held by the assessee' is not defined under Section 48 of the Act, that expression has to be understood as defined under Section 2 of the Act. Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Act provides that in determining the period for which an asset is held by an assessee under a gift, the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner shall be included. As the previous owner held the capital asset from 29/1/1993, as per Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Act, the assessee is deemed to have held the capital asset from 29/1/1993. By reason of the deemed holding of the asset from 29/1/1993, the assessee is deemed to have held the asset as a long term capital asset. If the long term capital gains liability has to be computed under Section 48 of the Act by treating that the assessee held the capital asset from 29/1/1993, then, naturally in determining the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 of the Act, the assessee must be treated to have held the asset from 29/1/1993 and accordingly the cost inflation index for 1992-93 would be applicable in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. 18. If the argument of the revenue that the deeming fiction contained in Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Act cannot be applied in computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Act is accepted, then, the assessee would not be liable for long term capital gains tax, because, it is only by applying the deemed fiction contained in Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) and Section 49(1)(ii) of the Act, the assessee is deemed to have held the asset from 29/1/1993 and deemed to have incurred the cost of acquisition and accordingly made liable for the long term capital gains tax. Therefore, when the legislature by introducing the deeming fiction seeks to tax the gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired under a gift or will and the capital gains under Section 48 of the Act has to be computed by applying the deemed fiction, it is not possible to accept the contention of revenue that the fiction contained in Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Act cannot be applied in determining the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. 19. It is true that the words of a statute are to be understood in their natural and ordinary sense unless the object of the statute suggests to the contrary. Thus, in

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 8 of 12 construing the words 'asset was held by the assessee' in clause (iii) of Explanation to Section 48 of the Act, one has to see the object with which the said words are used in the statute. If one reads Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) together with Section 48 and 49 of the Act, it becomes absolutely clear that the object of the statute is not merely to tax the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by an assessee by incurring the cost of acquisition, but also to tax the gains arising on transfer of a capital asset inter alia acquired by an assessee under a gift or will as provided under Section 49 of the Act where the assessee is deemed to have incurred the cost of acquisition. Therefore, if the object of the legislature is to tax the gains arising on transfer of a capital acquired under a gift or will by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner in determining the period for which the said asset was held by the assessee, then that object cannot be defeated by excluding the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner while determining the indexed cost of acquisition of that asset to the assessee. In other words, in the absence of any indication in clause (iii) of the Explanation to Section 48 of the Act that the words 'asset was held by the assessee' has to be construed differently, the said words should be construed in accordance with the object of the statute, that is, in the manner set out in Explanation 1(i)(b) to section 2(42A) of the Act. 20. To accept the contention of the revenue that the words used in clause (iii) of the Explanation to Section 48 of the Act has to be read by ignoring the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Act runs counter to the entire scheme of the Act. Section 2 of the Act expressly provides that unless the context otherwise requires, the provisions of the Act have to be construed as provided under Section 2 of the Act. In Section 48 of the Act, the expression 'asset held by the assessee' is not defined and, therefore, in the absence of any intention to the contrary the expression 'asset held by the assessee' in clause (iii) of the Explanation to Section 48 of the Act has to be construed in consonance with the meaning given in Section 2(42A) of the Act. If the meaning given in Section 2(42A) is not adopted in construing the words used in Section 48 of the Act, then the gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired under a gift or will be outside the purview of the capital gains tax which is not intended by the legislature. Therefore, the argument of the revenue which runs counter to the legislative intent cannot be accepted. 21. Apart from the above, Section 55(1)(b)(2)(ii) of the Act provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under Section 49(1) of the Act, not only the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee but also the cost of improvement incurred by the previous owner shall be deducted from the total consideration received by the assessee while computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Act. The question of deducting the cost of improvement incurred by the previous owner in the case of an assessee covered under Section 49(1) of the Act would arise only if the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner is included in determining the period for which the asset was held by the assessee. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that in the case of an assessee covered under Section 49(1) of the Act, the capital gains liability has to be computed by considering that the assessee held the said asset from the date it was held by the previous owner and the same analogy has also to be applied in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. 22. The object of giving relief to an assessee by allowing indexation is with a view to offset the effect of inflation. As per the CBDT Circular No. 636 dated 31/8/1992

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 9 of 12 [see 198 ITR 1 (St)] a fair method of allowing relief by way of indexation is to link it to the period of holding the asset. The said circular further provides that the cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement have to be inflated to arrive at the indexed cost of acquisition and the indexed cost of improvement and then deduct the same from the sale consideration to arrive at the long term capital gains. If indexation is linked to the period of holding the asset and in the case of an assessee covered under Section 49(1) of the Act, the period of holding the asset has to be determined by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner, then obviously in arriving at the indexation, the first year in which the said asset was held by the previous owner would be the first year for which the said asset was held by the assessee. 23. Since the assessee in the present case is held liable for long term capital gains tax by treating the period for which the capital asset in question was held by the previous owner as the period for which the said asset was held by the assessee, the indexed cost of acquisition has also to be determined on the very same basis. 24. In the result, we hold that the ITAT was justified in holding that while computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee under a gift, 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. 25. Accordingly, we dispose off the appeal by answering the question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue with no order as to costs.” 10. A similar issue has also been decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Smt. Kaveri Thimmaiah, cited supra , the relevant part is as under:-

“8. Section 45 of the Act provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under the head "Capital gains". Capital Gains is of two types. Short- term capital gains and long term capital gains. Depending upon the nature of capital gains the liability of the tax is determined. The mode and manner of computing the capital gains is provided under Section 48 of the Act. The income chargeable under the head 'capital gain' shall be computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset, the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer and the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereon. The 2nd proviso to Section 48 provides where long term capital gain arises from the transfer of a long term capital asset, the cost of acquisition of the asset has to be read as "indexed cost of acquisition". Indexed cost of acquisition has been defined in the Explanation to the said Section, it means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessees or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April 1981, whichever is later.

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 10 of 12 Section 49 deals with the cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition. One such mode is if the assessees acquires a capital asset by way of succession, inheritance or devolution, then the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessees, as the case may be. Therefore, when an asset is acquired by way of inheritance, the cost of acquisition of the asset should be calculated on the basis of the cost of acquisition by the previous owner and the said cost of acquisition of the previous owner has to be calculated on the basis of indexed cost of acquisition as provided in Explanation (3) to Section 48. 9. Though in the definition of 'indexed cost of acquisition', the word used are, "in which the asset was held by the assessee", a harmonious reading of Sections 48 and 49 makes it clear for the purpose of 'Indexed Cost of Acquisition', it has to be understood as the first year in which the previous owner held the said property. Otherwise, if the date of inheritance is taken into consideration, then the cost of acquisition of the asset on that date corresponding to the market value is to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, take the cost of acquisition on the day the previous owner acquired it and apply the "Indexed Cost of Acquisition" and then calculate the capital gains and the tax payable. That is precisely what has been held by the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid Judgment which in our view is the correct legal decision. 10. In that view of the matter, the tribunal was justified in following the Judgment of the Bombay High Court and in setting-aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed is answered in favour of the assessees and against the revenue. Appeals are dismissed. No costs.

11.

From the above judgments, cited supra, it has been held that while computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee through succession, 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 actually became the owner of the asset through succession. In the impugned case on hand the assessee first held the shares and paid cost for acquisition and later it was gifted to his father and the shares were also received on consequent to “WILL”, in these events there were only one time cost paid by the first holder of shares i.e. the present assessee, accordingly the assessee is eligible for cost of indexation benefit since when the shares were first acquired.

IT(IT)A No. 726/Bang/2022 Shri GAJENDRA LAL, AY 2019-20 Page 11 of 12 Respectfully following the above judgments, I allow the grounds raised by the assessee and AO is directed to compute capital gains in above terms.

12.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th January, 2023.

Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 20th January, 2023. Devadas/SPS

Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 45

All 1,374 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →