9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of Section 49(i)(iii) though on the issue contradictory decisions have been rendered by the ITAT". 2. The assessee is an individual. During the previous year the assessee alongwith other co-owners sold three plots of land at Madhapar, Gujarat. The assessee held 34.35% share in the Plot of Land bearing R.S.No.52/53, 4.5% share in the Plot of Land bearing R.S. No.11/1 & 11/2 and 53.40% share in the Plot of Land bearing R.S.No.466/3. The assessee has declared his share of sale consideration at ₹ 1,54,500/-, ₹ 5,82,750/- and ₹ 30,91,986/- respectively. Against such consideration, the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 1,65,120/-, ₹ 6,15,600/- and ₹ 28,88,976/- respectively. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. However, while computing the indexed cost of acquisition, the assessee has taken the base year as 1981 of the entire property. The AO thereafter referred to Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which reads as follows:- "indexed cost of acquisition" means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1981, whichever is later;" The AO was of the view that the benefit of indexation can be allowed from the period when the "Asset is held by the Assessee" and not when h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisition 2,31,118 5,61,572 7,92,690 Capital Gains 81,961 22,56,621 23,38,635 6. The assessee was aggrieved by the order of the AO in not allowing indexation as claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) on this issue accepted the plea of the assessee following the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Manjula J. Shah, 318 ITR 417(AT)(Mum)(SB). Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. In our view the issue is squarely covred by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Manjula J. Shah (supra). It has been held in the said decision as follows: "The assessee transferred a capital asset which was received by her by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
