9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 478 - AT - Income TaxIndexed costs of acquisition - family arrangement - sibling of the assessee relinquished their rights. - CIT(A) held year 1981-82 as base year for A.Y. 2006-07 as against F.Y. 2003-04 determined by the Assessing Officer. - Held that - The Ld. DR could not place on record any contradictory material in support of his contention that the indexation should be with reference to the financial year in which property devolved on assessee by virtue of family arrangement - No reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) - the indexed cost of acquisition of such capital asset has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset. - Following decision of DCIT vs Manjula Shah 2009 (10) TMI 646 - ITAT MUMBAI - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Determination of base year for indexed costs of acquisition. 2. Claim of exemption under section 54 EC of the Income Tax Act. 3. Computation of indexed cost of acquisition based on the year of previous owner's acquisition. Issue 1: Determination of base year for indexed costs of acquisition: The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07, where the Revenue challenged the base year for determining the indexed costs of acquisition set by the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the base year should be F.Y. 2003-04, while the CIT(A) held it to be F.Y. 1981-82. The property in question was jointly sold by the assessee and another individual, with both having an equal share. The AO calculated the long-term capital gain based on the fair market value and indexed cost of acquisition. The Revenue contended that the indexed cost should be based on the year the property devolved upon the assessee and his brother, following a family arrangement. The CIT(A) directed the AO to compute the indexed cost based on the year the previous owner acquired the asset. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by ITAT, upholding the CIT(A)'s order based on the decision of the ITAT Special Bench. Issue 2: Claim of exemption under section 54 EC of the Income Tax Act: The assessee claimed exemption under section 54 EC of the Income Tax Act, stating an investment made in capital bonds. However, it was revealed that the flat in question was owned by the assessee's mother, and only devolved upon the assessee and his brother after a family arrangement in 2003. The AO computed the indexed cost of acquisition based on the year of the family arrangement, leading to a dispute. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to calculate the indexed cost based on the year the previous owner acquired the asset, thereby affecting the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54 EC. Issue 3: Computation of indexed cost of acquisition based on the year of previous owner's acquisition: The crux of the dispute revolved around the computation of the indexed cost of acquisition, specifically whether it should be determined based on the year the property devolved upon the assessee and his brother through a family arrangement or the year the previous owner (mother) first held the asset. The ITAT, following the decision in the case of DCIT vs Manjula Shah, directed the indexed cost to be calculated with reference to the year in which the previous owner acquired the asset. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, as the issue was conclusively settled by the decision of the ITAT Special Bench, and no contradictory material was presented to warrant interference with the CIT(A)'s order. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal intricacies surrounding the determination of indexed costs of acquisition and the implications on claims for exemption under the Income Tax Act.
|
