9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 562 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain on sale of shares acquired by way of gift - period of holding - indexed cost of the acquisition of the shares sold by the assessee - Held that - In the present case while computing the capital gains arising on sale of shares acquired by the assessee by way of gift, the indexed cost of acquisition is to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owners first held the assets and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of the asset. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) directing the AO to compute the capital gains in the case of the assessee by applying the indexed cost of acquisition in which the previous owners first held the shares in question. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of indexed cost of acquisition for capital gains computation. 2. Interpretation of "previous owner" in relation to capital asset acquisition by gift or inheritance. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Indexed Cost of Acquisition for Capital Gains Computation: The primary issue revolves around the computation of the indexed cost of acquisition for shares received as gifts by the assessee. The assessee declared long-term capital gains and claimed indexation benefits from the dates when the previous owners first held the shares. The AO, however, contended that the indexation should be calculated from the year the assessee first held the shares, not the previous owners. The AO's computation led to a higher taxable capital gain, rejecting the assessee's claim by applying the cost inflation index (CII) from the year the shares were first held by the assessee. 2. Interpretation of "Previous Owner" in Relation to Capital Asset Acquisition by Gift or Inheritance: The interpretation of "previous owner" under Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act is crucial in this case. The assessee argued that the indexed cost of acquisition should be computed from the year the previous owner first held the asset, as supported by various judicial precedents and CBDT Circular No. 636. The AO disagreed, stating that indexation benefits should only apply from the year the assessee acquired the shares. Judgment Analysis: 1. Indexed Cost of Acquisition: The Tribunal examined the assessee's claim that the indexed cost of acquisition should be computed from the year the previous owners first held the shares. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including the Special Bench decision in Deputy CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah and the Mumbai High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah, which supported the assessee's position. The Tribunal noted that the indexed cost of acquisition must consider the period the previous owner held the asset, ensuring the benefit of indexation is extended from the date of acquisition by the previous owner. 2. Interpretation of "Previous Owner": The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "previous owner" under Section 49(1) and its explanation. It concluded that the term "previous owner" includes not just the immediate previous owner but also the original owner from whom the asset devolved. This interpretation aligns with the principle that indexation is allowed for the period of holding the asset, not the individuality of the assessee. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Janhavi S. Desai, which held that the period for determining long-term capital gains includes the period the original owner held the asset. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to compute the capital gains by applying the indexed cost of acquisition from the year the previous owners first held the shares. The Tribunal found no infirmity in allowing the assessee's claim for indexation benefits from the dates the previous owners acquired the shares. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that the indexed cost of acquisition should consider the holding period of the previous owners. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2014, dismissing the Department's appeal and upholding the CIT(A)'s decision favoring the assessee.
|
