The Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Pune v. Shailesh S. Gujar (HUF) - 2014-LL-1115-2

Citation	2014-LL-1115-2
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Pune
Respondent Name	Shailesh S. Gujar (HUF)
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	15/11/2014
Assessment Year	2007-08
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	indexed cost of acquisition • sale of land • capital gain
Bot Summary:	2) This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenges the Tribunal's order delivered on 21 st October, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No. 762/PN/2010 for the assessment year 2007 08. The Tribunal was considering the issue of computation of indexed cost of acquisition by applying indexation from 1981. The Tribunal held that the Revenue was not justified in challenging the Page 1 of 2 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2020 09:50:36 ::: ITXA.1642. 2012.3.doc order of the Commissioner of Income Tax who directed the Assessing Officer to compute the indexed cost of acquisition by applying indexation from 1981. The Revenue filed Appeal before the Tribunal though the issue was fully covered by its Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Manjula Shah1. There is another decision of this Court and it has also been referred to by the Tribunal in para 4 of the impugned order. In these circumstances, we do not think that the Tribunal's order can be interfered by us in further Appellate Jurisdiction.

ITXA.1642.2012.3.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax III } Pune } Appellant versus Dr. Shailesh S. Gujar (HUF) } Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 15, 2014 P.C. : Heard Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing on behalf of Revenue, in support of this Appeal. 2) This Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act challenges Tribunal's order delivered on 21 st October, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No. 762/PN/2010 for assessment year 2007 08. Tribunal was considering issue of computation of indexed cost of acquisition by applying indexation from 1981. Assessee had sold land and consideration received was offered to tax. land cost and when it was acquired in year, 1981 was taken into consideration for arriving at figure of capital gain or its computation. Tribunal held that Revenue was not justified in challenging Page 1 of 2 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2020 09:50:36 ::: ITXA.1642.2012.3.doc order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who directed Assessing Officer to compute indexed cost of acquisition by applying indexation from 1981. What Assessing Officer thus noticed was correct position according to Commissioner. Revenue filed Appeal before Tribunal though issue was fully covered by its Special Bench decision in case of DCIT vs. Manjula Shah1. 3) That decision of Tribunal has been upheld by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjula J. Shah2. There is another decision of this Court and it has also been referred to by Tribunal in para 4 of impugned order. 4) Since issue was answered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue by authoritative pronouncement of this Court, then, this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. indexed cost of acquisition has to be reckoned with reference to year in which previous owner acquired asset and not year in which Assessee acquired same. In these circumstances, we do not think that Tribunal's order can be interfered by us in further Appellate Jurisdiction. Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 1 318 ITR 417 2 (2013) 355 IRT 474 (Bom) Page 2 of 2 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2020 09:50:36 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Pune v. Shailesh S. Gujar (HUF)

Metadata

Judgment