9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee rightly relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax V. Aditya Medisales Ltd. [2013 (11) TMI 576 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - wherein it has been held that “where capital gains arising on the transfer of a long term capital asset are invested in a specified asset, the assessee is not to be charged tax on the capital gains and the exemption provided u/s 54EC, cannot be denied to the assessee only on account of the fact that a deeming fiction is created u/s 50 - the legal fiction created u/s 50 of the Act is restricted to computation of capital gains and such deeming fiction cannot restrict application of section 54EC which allow exemption of capital gains, if the assessee makes investment in the specified assets – thus, the order of the Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The CIT(A) partly allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 23.01.2001 dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of the revenue. 3. While admitting this appeal on 17.09.2001 this Court had formulated the following substantial question of law: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law and on facts in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) and thereby holding that the case of the assessee was not covered by Section 50 of the Act and the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g term capital gain. The revenue is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us. Relevant for the determination of the present controversy are undisputed. The assets in question namely the Nagdevi property situated at Bombay has been purchased in October, 1969 and thereafter has been used for the purpose of business right upto A.Y. 1984-85. The depreciation has been claimed and allowed by the Assessing Officer upto A.Y.1984-85. However, with effect from A.Y. 1985-86 the property has not been used for the purposes of business and no depreciation has been claimed and none has been allowed. Thus, so far as asstt. Years 1985-86, 1986-87 1987-88 are concerned, the written down value of the property has been reflected in the books of the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be applicable for the purpose of computation of capital gains. The Nagdevi property is obviously a long term capital asset. The Assessing Officer would, therefore, compute the long term capital gain by applying the provisions of section 45 and 49 the cost of acquisition would be adopted as the purchased consideration paid by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, upheld. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the issue involved in this appeal is already concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Aditya Medisales Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that where capital gains arising on the transfer of a long term capital ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
