9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Indexed cost of acquisition for capital gains calculation. 2. Deduction under section 80G from capital gains income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Indexed Cost of Acquisition for Capital Gains Calculation: The primary issue in the appeal was the determination of the indexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) calculated it at Rs. 37,26,013, while the assessee claimed Rs. 47,82,765, leading to an addition of Rs. 10,56,752, which the CIT(A) deleted. The revenue supported the AO's assessment, citing judgments from the Hon'ble Apex Court in *Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT* and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in *Seth Rasesh Family Trust No. 1 v. CIT*. The assessee countered, arguing that the principle of averaging for bonus shares applies only when shares are sold in lots at different times. When the entire holding is sold in one transaction, the original cost of acquisition is known, supported by the Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in *CIT v. TVS & Sons Ltd.* and other cases. The Tribunal noted that the judgments cited by the revenue were not directly applicable due to amendments in section 48 by the Finance Act, 1992, which introduced indexed cost of acquisition. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's method of indexing the original cost up to the year of allotment of bonus shares before averaging, aligning with CIT(A)'s reasoning. The Tribunal found that the AO's method deprived the assessee of the indexation benefit from the date of purchase to the allotment of bonus shares, which was unjustified. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting the revenue's grounds. 2. Deduction under Section 80G from Capital Gains Income: The second issue was the deduction under section 80G amounting to Rs. 46,82,209 from capital gains income. The assessee donated Rs. 6,01,06,000 and claimed a deduction of Rs. 47,35,650 under section 80G, based on gross total income (GTI) minus a deduction under section 80L. The AO, citing section 112(2), excluded long-term capital gains (LTCG) from GTI, reducing the deduction to Rs. 53,441. The CIT(A) sided with the assessee, allowing the higher deduction, interpreting that LTCG should bear tax at 20% but should not reduce the GTI for section 80G deduction calculation. The revenue appealed, arguing the AO's interpretation was correct. The Tribunal examined section 112(2) and section 80B(5). It found that section 112(2) requires reducing GTI by LTCG for Chapter VI-A deductions, including section 80G. The Tribunal disagreed with the AO's interpretation, which excluded LTCG from GTI, as it would affect other Chapter VI-A deductions. The Tribunal concurred with CIT(A) that section 112(2) ensures LTCG is fully taxed at 20%, capping the deduction under Chapter VI-A. The Tribunal concluded that the deduction under section 80G should be limited to Rs. 10,08,822, ensuring the entire LTCG is taxed, partially favoring the revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the indexed cost of acquisition, rejecting the revenue's appeal. On the deduction under section 80G, the Tribunal partially favored the revenue, limiting the deduction to Rs. 10,08,822 to ensure full taxation of LTCG. The appeal was partly allowed.
|
