9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to invoke the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said plea was accepted by the Tribunal and the revenue is in appeal before us on this issue. Held that: Section 49(1) deals with the computation of cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition. It, inter alia, provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee on any distribution of assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu Undivided Family or on any distribution of assets on the liquidation of a company, then the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 29.12.2008 in IT (SS) A Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 95/Del/2007. 2. A company by the name of Ambitious Gold Nibs Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Ambitious Gold") acquired a property measuring 2829 sq. yds at C-101 Maya Puri Industrial Area on 17.01.1966 from the DDA. The said property was sold by the said company on 29.11.1999. During search operations conducted in the residential premises of the assessees herein, who are directors in Ambitious Gold, a document entitled "family arrangement" and which purported to have been reduced to writing on 01.09.1997, was recovered. The said document was apparently effective from 31.07.1992. According to the assessees, by virtue of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessee, as the case may be. In the present case, we find that the asset in question, namely, C-101 Maya Puri Industrial Area was not the property of a Hindu Undivided Family. Secondly, it was owned by the said company, namely, Ambitious Gold and there was no distribution of its assets because there was no liquidation of the company. Consequently, the said capital asset continued to be owned by Ambitious Gold and did not become the property of the assessees herein and, therefore, Section 49(1) would not apply. 5. While examining the issue of applicability of Section 49(1), we noticed that the Assessing Officer and the authorities below were all wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surplus would be refunded to the respondents/ assessees. The counsel for the respondents/ assessees submits that no benefit has been taken by the respondents/ assessees in respect of the tax on capital gains paid by them. If any benefit has been taken, the same would have to be reversed in accordance with law. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, we set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities on this aspect of the matter. The Assessing Officer would have to compute the capital gains in the hands of the said company in the light of the directions given above. We also place it on record that the counsel for the respondents/ assessees has fairly consented to this order being passed. These appeals stand disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
