Case Law Details
Arun Shungloo Trust Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
There is no reason and justification to hold that clause (iii) of the Explanation intents to reduce or restrict the “indexed cost of acquisition’ to the period during which the assessee has held the property and not the period during which the property was held by the previous owner.
The interpretation relied by the assessee is reasonable and in consonance with the object and purpose behind Sections 48 and 49 of the Act. The expression “held by the assessee” used in Explanation (iii) to Section 48 has to be understood in the context and harmoniously with other Sections. The cost of acquisition stipulated in Section 49 means the cost for which the previous owner had acquired the property. The term “held by the assessee” should be interpreted to include the period during which the property was held by the previous owner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA No. 116/2011
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
