https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456644 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that for inherited property, the indexed cost of acquisition should include the period during which the previous owner held the asset. This decision aligns with the legislative intent and the Special Bench's interpretation in the Manjula J. Shah case. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, supporting the assessee's position that indexation should begin from the year the previous owner first held the property. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition made by the AO, thus affirming the assessee's interpretation of the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. en-us Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Aug 2024 14:10:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456644 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that for inherited property, the indexed cost of acquisition should include the period during which the previous owner held the asset. This decision aligns with the legislative intent and the Special Bench's interpretation in the Manjula J. Shah case. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, supporting the assessee's position that indexation should begin from the year the previous owner first held the property. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition made by the AO, thus affirming the assessee's interpretation of the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456644