9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Computation and assessment of long-term capital gain without allowing the benefit of indexation. 2. Set-off of long-term capital loss calculated with indexation against long-term capital gain calculated without indexation. 3. Interpretation of legal provisions u/s 48, 70, and 112 of the Income-tax Act. Summary: Issue 1: Computation and Assessment of Long-Term Capital Gain Without Indexation The assessee, a HUF, filed its return declaring total income of Rs. 10,54,91,782. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed and assessed the long-term capital gain on the units of Birla Income Plus at Rs. 3,01,703 without allowing the benefit of indexation as provided in the proviso to section 48 of the Income-tax Act. The AO held that the benefit of indexation cannot be availed on a pick and choose basis. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order. Issue 2: Set-off of Long-Term Capital Loss Calculated with Indexation Against Long-Term Capital Gain Calculated Without Indexation The assessee argued that as per the 2nd proviso to section 48, the indexed cost of acquisition is a privilege allowed to the assessee, and the choice to avail of the benefit of indexation lies with the assessee. The assessee relied on section 70, which allows for the set-off of long-term capital loss against long-term capital gain. The AO disagreed, stating that capital gain must be calculated on the same footing for setting off income under the same head. Issue 3: Interpretation of Legal Provisions u/s 48, 70, and 112 of the Income-tax Act The Tribunal examined the relevant legal provisions. Section 48 governs the computation of income from capital gains, allowing indexation for each long-term capital asset. Section 70 provides for the set-off of loss from one source against income from another source under the same head of income. Section 112 deals with the tax on long-term capital gain, allowing the assessee to choose between paying 20% tax with indexation or 10% tax without indexation. The Tribunal found that the legislature intended to tax capital gains with indexation at 20% and limit the tax on capital gains on transfer of listed securities or units computed without indexation to 10%. The Tribunal held that the assessee could avail the benefit of indexation for some transactions and opt for the 10% tax rate for others. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench in Devinder Prakash Kalra v. Asstt. CIT and the Special Bench in Jt. CIT v. Montgomery Emerging Markets Fund, which supported the assessee's option for set-off and method of computation. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the assessee has the option to avail the benefit of indexation for each long-term capital asset and set off the loss computed with indexation against the gain computed without indexation. The Tribunal emphasized that the word "a" in the provisions should be understood in the context of the provision, not the plain dictionary meaning.
|
