CIT vs. HARINDER KAUR BHUTALIA
What did the High Court hold?
The tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition from the date the property was acquired by the predecessor-in-interest.
What were the facts?
The assessee inherited property in 1993, which was acquired by their father in 1981-82. The property was sold after a family settlement in 2006.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee can claim indexed cost of acquisition from the date of acquisition by the predecessor, or only from the date of the family settlement.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 244/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv. . . . versus . . . HARINDER KAUR BHUTALIA ..... Respondent . Through . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 17.04.2012 . . . Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns the order dated 13th October, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the tribunal) in the case of Harinder Butalia. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2007-08. In the impugned order, the tribunal had held that the assessee would be entitled to benefit of indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. . 2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee had inherited ownership rights in premises No.22, Friends Colony (West), Mathura Road, New Delhi in 1993 after death of his father Shiv Charan Singh. The father had acquired the property in 1981-82. Subsequently, family members of Shiv CharanSingh entered into an oral memorandum of family settlement dated 2nd June, 2006 and the property was sold in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. . 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of indexed cost of acquisition for the period prior to 2nd June, 2006 as the assessee in personal/individual capacity acquired the right in the property only when the family settlement was executed. . 4. Similar controversy/issue was examined by this Court in ITA No.116/2011 titled Arun Shungloo Trust Vs. CIT decided on 13th February, 2012. After examining the relevant provisions, it has been held that in such cases, an assessee is entitled to benefit of indexed cost of acquisition from the date property was acquired by the predecessor-in- interest (previous owner) under Section 49 of the Act. . 5. In view of the said decision, no substantial question of law of arises in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J. . APRIL 17, 2012 . NA . . . . . 35 .
More judgments on Section 48
- Hansaben Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2762/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Banwari, Bhiwadi vs ITO, BhiwadiITA 1710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Reshma Dilip Ramrakhyani, Gandhidham vs ITO Ward 2 Gandhidham, GandhidhamITA 895/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026