ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. INDRANI BASU MALLICK, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1926/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 April 2019AY 2013-142 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 when a capital asset is acquired through circumstances covered by Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, the period for which the previous owner held the asset should be included for calculating the holding period and indexation.

What were the facts?

The assessee acquired a property through a will and succession. The Revenue disputed the period of holding for capital gains calculation, specifically regarding indexation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the period of holding by the previous owner should be considered for indexation when the asset was acquired by the assessee through inheritance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 49

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, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara

Date of concluding the hearing : February 18th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : April 3rd ,2019

O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This appeal by the Revenue directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 8, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 13.06.2017.

2.

After hearing rival contentions, we find that the ld. First Appellate Tribunal applied the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah; [IT Appeal No.3378 of 2010] 16 taxmann 42 (Bom) and held that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee in the circumstances mentioned in Sub-Section 1 of Section 49 of the Act, there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner referred to in the said section for the purpose of calculating the period of holding of the asset by the assessee for the purpose of computing of capital gain and granted relief. The assessee, in this case, acquired the property through will and succession. Hence, the date of acquisition of previous owner shall be the date of acquisition of the asset by the assessee and indexation will be available from that date.

Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 3. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 3rd April, 2019.

More judgments on Section 49

All 176 judgments and leading authorities on Section 49 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →