Case Law Details
Case Name : ITO Vs. Sudip Roy (ITAT Kolkata)
Related Assessment Year : 2007- 08
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Kolkata
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
ITO Vs. Sudip Roy (ITAT Kolkata)
In the present case the assessing officer has applied cost inflation index applicable for financial year 2002-2003 being the year in which the assessee inherited the property. The words “the year in which the assessee first held the capital assets” is interpreted by him to be the year in which the assessee succeeded to the assets. We find that section 2(42A) also uses a somewhat similar expression. Explanation 1 to section 2(42A) provides that in determining the period for which any capital asset is held by the assessee, in the case of a capital ass...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
One Comment
Cancel reply
INSTANT (Pending a mindful study of the ITAT Ruling): The view the ITAT has taken calls for a closer and insightful study; And, for doing so, the points of view canvassed *(refer the previous Posts) against applicability / applying the New Indexation Table to any asset ACQUIRED by any one of the modes, -including inheritance as in the instant case, -before the FY 1981-82 or /FY 2001-02, and held and transferred in or before the FY 2017-18, might be of relevance. To be precise, with that in focus, the validity of the contention advanced by the taxpayer, and accepted by the Commissioner (appeals), –
as recorded in paragraph 4 of the ITAT Order (in which the concluding portion reads – ” However, assessing officer was authorized to make the reference to the DVO with effect from 1-7-2012 and instant case pertains to the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, the assessing officer cannot make the reference to the DVO as the assessee has shown more value of the property as on 1-4-1981 than the value of the DVO.”,-
might deserve an independent review.
KEY Note: One is provoked to take the opportunity to advert to, and reiterate the personal suggestion made, yet again, why the Revenue should, sooner than later, bring about clarity in regard to the correct implications of the New Indexation Table, as canvassed for. Thereby, cry a halt to all such unintended controversies, once for all.
To give a useful hint: Consider what view would have been taken, -with no scope for any dispute, – had there been no change of base year made , hence no New Indexation Table been laid down.