N.BHASKER,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3394/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 February 2017AY 2013-142 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 when a property is acquired by succession or inheritance, the year of acquisition by the previous owner should be considered for indexation. The Bombay High Court judgment in CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah was cited and followed.

What were the facts?

The assessee acquired a property through a will from its mother. The Assessing Officer allowed indexation for Long Term Capital Gains only from FY 2002-2003, not considering the period of ownership of the previous owner. The assessee argued for indexation from the previous owner's acquisition period.

What were the issues?

Whether indexation benefit for Long Term Capital Gains should include the period of ownership of the previous owner when the property is acquired by succession.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but related 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, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

In this appeal filed by the assessee, its grievance is that indexation benefit considering the period of the ownership of the previous owner was not given to it for calculating Long Term Capital Gains.

2.

When the appeal was called up, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, we find that subject property on which long term capital gains was computed came to assessee’s ownership by virtue of a will dated 21.08.2000. Property was owned by assessee’s :- 2 -: mother. Assessee had sought indexation considering the period of ownership of Smt. Lakshmibanu Rao. However, ld. Assessing Officer had allowed indexation only from financial year 2002-2003 since Smt.

Lakshmibanu Rao had died on 18.01.2003.

3.

We find the issue in question is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah 355 ITR 474. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not followed the above judgment citing a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Department against above judgment. We find that SLP was already dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. When a property come to assessee by virtue of succession, inheritance or devolution , its year of acquisition should be deemed as the year of acquisition by the previous owner for the purpose of indexation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that assessee has to succeed in this appeal.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 4.

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 14th day of February, 2017, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →