9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, and allocate the capital gains so computed to the extent of 50% each in the hands of the assessee and her sister, Ms. Crystal Perry - We direct like-wise, as has in fact, the ld. CIT(A) - We decide accordingly. Regarding Period of Holding - Held that:- The Special Bench of the tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah (2009 (10) TMI 646 - ITAT MUMBAI) has confirmed the indexation benefit since 01.04.1981 onwards - The said decision by the tribunal has been since upheld by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah (2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - The holding period of the assessee in respect of the said asset, again, to be reckoned with reference to the holding by the previous owner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case, i.e., the manner in which the assessee became the owner of 50% of the house property under reference, which stands sold during the year, is not in doubt or dispute, and stands stated at para 4, pgs. 1 and 2 of the assessment order. The property stood bequeathed to the assessee along with her sister, by their grand father, Shri Lewis Perry, through his will, which was probated in the Bombay High Court on 20.05.1998. Shri Lewis Perry, in turn, had acquired the said share, to the extent of 25% on the death of his wife, Mrs. Lewis Perry in the financial year (f.y.) 1985-86, and to the extent of 50% on the death of his sister Mrs. Rose G. Pereira in the f.y. 1983-84. Rose G. Pereira was the original owner of the property, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee having 50% share therein can, consequently, claim only 50% of the said value (which has been worked by the registered valuer at Rs.16,84,125/-), i.e., at Rs.8,42,063/-, in the computation of the long term capital gains in her hands. In fact, even as pointed out by the assessee s counsel, with reference to the working reproduced at pg. 6 of the impugned order, a better way would be to compute the entire long term capital gains on the sale of house property, and allocate the capital gains so computed to the extent of 50% each in the hands of the assessee and her sister, Ms. Crystal Perry. We direct like-wise, as has in fact, the ld. CIT(A). We decide accordingly. 3.2 The second issue arising in the instant appeal is in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s deemed by the fiction of law to be the cost to the previous owner, as well as the holding period of the assessee in respect of the said asset, again, to be reckoned with reference to the holding by the previous owner, the indexation benefit, which is to be applied to a long-term capital asset and, further, is only for providing the benefit of inflation in the working of the capital gains for the period of holding since 01.04.1981, could not be denied to the assessee. The law having been settled by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court thus, we do not find any merit in the Revenue s case. The said issue, agitated by it per its Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the instant appeal, also, thus, fails. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
