ITO, CHENNAI vs. RAGHU RAMADAS, CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that indexation for capital gains should be calculated from the date the original owner acquired the property, following the Bombay High Court judgment in Manjula J. Shah. The CIT(Appeals) order was confirmed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order concerning the computation of capital gains for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee received property through a settlement deed (gift).
What were the issues?
The key issue was whether the cost of acquisition for capital gains should be indexed from the date the assessee received the property by settlement deed or from the date the original owner acquired it.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Manjula J. Shah113 citing355 ITR 474 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, dated 27.10.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.
No one attended for the assessee inspite of issue of notice by RPAD. Therefore, we heard Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit.
Shri Shiva Srinivas, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is computation of capital gain. According to the Ld. D.R., while computing the capital gain, the Assessing Officer refused to index from the date on which the original owner acquired the asset. According to the Ld. D.R., the property came to the assessee by way of settlement deed, therefore, the cost of acquisition has to be ascertained on the date on which the property came to the assessee by way of settlement deed. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by placing his reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Manjula J. Shah (2013) 355 ITR 474. According to the Ld. D.R., the cost indexation has to be made under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
We have considered the submission of Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the assessee received the property by way of settlement deed, otherwise it is known as gift. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Manjula J. Shah (supra), the indexation has to be made from the date on which the original owner acquired the property. In fact, the CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of Bombay High Court in Manjula J. Shah (supra) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the inflation indexation from the date on which the original owner acquired the property. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Income Tax Officer (It)-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs Shri Shavji Lalji Hirani, MumbaiMumbai23 Oct 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the benefit of indexation with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset, following a coordinate bench's decision on the same property. The Revenue'...
- I.T.O. (International Taxation) - 4(2)(1)… vs Smt. Trupti Deepak Sanghani, MumbaiMumbai28 Mar 2019Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
The Tribunal held that prior to April 1, 2015, there was no explicit requirement for the new residential house to be purchased within India for Section 54 deduction. It also held that for inherited property, indexation c...
- Income Tax Officer (It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs Shri Psalm Soli Dastur, MumbaiMumbai22 Mar 2019Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to count the holding period and benefit of indexation from the year the previous owner acquired the asset, which was before 01/04/1981. This decision aligns with the Bombay...
- ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs Kekin Sheth, MumbaiMumbai25 Apr 2018Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
The Tribunal held that indexation on the cost of acquisition should be applied from the year the previous owner first held the asset, not from when the assessee became the owner. This was based on the jurisdictional High...
- Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Ahmednagar vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxPune13 Feb 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the selling expenses. It found that the payments were not essential for the transfer of the land and lacked proper evidence to establish their connection to the capital gains. The ...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
