9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of the asset." 2) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not adopting a 'literal interpretation' in case of tax statutes whereas the Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Act clearly mentions that for computing the indexed cost of acquisition, the base year has to be the first year in which the asset was held by the "assessee" and not the previous owner of the asset and thus going against the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respective charging sections? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the temporal conditions laid down in section 54(l)(ii) on transfer of the new asset when applied to that asset being situated outside India would lead to section 45 of the Act having taxing jurisdiction over income arising outside India in the case of the non-resident resulting in a contradiction vis-a-vis section 5(2) of the Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2014 in section 54 of the IT Act, 1961 is only clarificatory in nature in case of residents, as in case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while computing the indexed cost of acquisition had taken indexation benefit on fair market value from 01-04-1981 (indexation cost) as a base year. The AO further noted that the property (asset) was acquired by way of inheriting the after the death of her father and mother on 06-12-2012 and 13-06-1998, respectively. However, the assessee claimed indexation cost from 1981. The assessee was issued show cause notice by AO as to why the indexation cost should not be treated from the date of her acquisition. The AO after considering the submission of assessee, the AO treated the date of acquisition from 2012 and resultantly granted indexation benefit from 2012. The AO further noted that the assessee purchased residential property outside India. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the assessee has purchased residential house outside India. The Ld. CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Leena J Shah(supra). The Ld. CIT(A) also held that amendment in exemption in incorporating the word " constructed one residential house in India" in section 54F is inserted by Finance Act 2014 and applicable w.e.f . 01-04-2015 and accordingly would apply from 2015-16. The case of the assessee relates to AY 2013- 14. Therefore, the amendment brought by Finance Bill (No.2) Act, 2014 is not applicable in the case of assessee. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Leena J Shah (supra) and by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Smt. VK Karapagam 272 CT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
