https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210759 The court ruled in favor of the appellant-assessee, holding that the term "held by the assessee" in Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Income Tax Act should include the period during which the asset was held by the previous owner. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to tax real gains rather than inflationary increases. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to compute the indexed cost of acquisition from the date the previous owner acquired the property, rejecting the Revenue's stance that indexing should commence from the first year the asset was held by the assessee. en-us Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2024 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210759 The court ruled in favor of the appellant-assessee, holding that the term "held by the assessee" in Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Income Tax Act should include the period during which the asset was held by the previous owner. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to tax real gains rather than inflationary increases. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to compute the indexed cost of acquisition from the date the previous owner acquired the property, rejecting the Revenue's stance that indexing should commence from the first year the asset was held by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210759