9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Shantadevi Gaikwad (Dec.) [ 2012 (5) TMI 149 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative, the facts of the case clearly reveal that applicability of the reverse indexation in the facts of that case was accepted by both the assessee and the Revenue which is not the fact in the present case. In case of Jahanganj Cold Storage [ 2010 (4) TMI 765 - ITAT, AGRA] the facts would so that the FMV of the asset as on 1st April 1981, was not available. Therefore, reverse indexation method was applied. In any case of the matter, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Special Bench, in Vijay R. Rathore v/s ITO [ 2006 (10) TMI 174 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] held that FMV as on 1st April 1981, has to be taken as cost of acquisition after allowing benefit of indexation. In the facts of the present case, the FMV of the asset transferred as on 1st April 1981 is available as per the valuation report of the registered valuer of the assessee. Therefore, when the FMV of the tenancy right as on 1st April 1981 is available, there is no valid reason to discard it and adopt the cost of acquisition as per reverse indexation method merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 15th June 2018, in M.A. no.307/Mum./ 2016. This is how the present appeal came up for hearing before this Bench. 2. The assessee has raised three effective grounds in this appeal. At the outset, the assessee appearing in person has expressed his intention not to contest ground no.1(a). Accordingly, ground no.1(a) is dismissed as not pressed. 3. In ground no.1(b), the assessee has raised the issue of computation of cost inflation index in reverse manner while computing long term capital gain on transfer of tenancy rights. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual and advocate by profession. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 20th September 2008, declaring total income of ₹ 56,22,683. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on verifying the return of income filed by the assessee, noticed that the assessee has offered capital gain derived from sale of his 1/8th share in property at Gramdevi, Mumbai, and has claimed exemption under section 50EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). However, he has not offered capital gain arising out of sale of his half share in the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, reverse indexation for arriving at cost of acquisition is a valid method, hence, his claim for reverse indexation should have been allowed. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Shantadevi Gaikwad (Dec.) v/s DCIT, [2012] 72 DTR 241 (Guj.); and ii) Jahanganj Cold Storage v/s ACIT, [2010] 133 TTJ (Agra) (TM). 6. The assessee submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, assessee s claim of reverse indexation should be allowed. 7. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, assessee s claim of cost of indexation benefit since has been allowed as per statutory provision, the alternative claim of reverse indexation has been rightly rejected. 8. We have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, initially, the assessee had claimed that the gain derived from transfer of tenancy right is not at all taxable. However, before us, the assessee has expressed his intention not to contest the aforesaid issue. Therefore, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cost of acquisition after allowing benefit of indexation. In the facts of the present case, the FMV of the asset transferred as on 1st April 1981 is available as per the valuation report of the registered valuer of the assessee. Therefore, when the FMV of the tenancy right as on 1st April 1981 is available, there is no valid reason to discard it and adopt the cost of acquisition as per reverse indexation method merely because it is more beneficial to the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the assessee. This ground is dismissed. 9. In ground no.1(c), the assessee has challenged disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act r/w rule 8D. 10. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that in the year under consideration the assessee has earned exempt income by way of dividend amounting to ₹ 6,17,983. Whereas, he has not disallowed any expenditure under section 14A of the Act r/w rule 8D, on account of expenditure attributable to earning of exempt income. When called upon to explain, the assessee submitted that the entire expenditure debited to the Profit Loss Account i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
