2013 (9) TMI 886

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....)27, Mumbai dated 06.09.2010 wherein the Ld.CIT(A)27, Mumbai has directed the A.O. to adopt the cost inflation index base year as on 01.04.1981 despite the Assessee actually became legal and real owner of the property in A.Y. 200708? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring explanation (iii) of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act 1961 which is unambiguous and crystal clear? (C) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in relying on the decision of CIT V/s. Manjula R. Shah of the jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay ignoring the facts that the said decision has not been accepted by the department? 2. In the impugned order dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....expression has to be understood as defined under Section 2 of the Act. Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Act provides that in determining the period for which an asset is held by an assessee under a gift, the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner shall be included. As the previous owner held the capital asset from 29/1/1993, as per Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Act, the assessee is deemed to have held the capital asset from 29/1/1993. By reason of the deemed holding of the asset from 29/1/1993, the assessee is deemed to have held the asset as a long term capital asset. If the long term capital gains liability has to be computed under Section 48 of the Act by treating that the assessee held ....