2014 (9) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....old by the petitioner/assessee in the year ending 31.03.2006. The painting was sold by the petitioner/assessee for a sum of Rs. 34 lacs. The painting had been acquired by the assessee prior to 01.04.1981 and, therefore, the value of the painting as on 01.04.1981 was taken and indexed upto the date of the sale to compute the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 16,15,250/-. When the petitioner/assessee filed her return of income, she included this computation and disclosed long term capital gains of Rs. 17,84,750/-, being the difference between the sale price and the indexed cost of acquisition. On the said amount, she paid tax of Rs. 3,66,434/- and interest of Rs. 75,852/- totalling to Rs. 4,42,286/- on account of tax and interest. 3. Subseq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include- (i) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (ii) personal effects, that is to say, movable property (including wearing apparel and furniture, but excluding jewellery) held for personal use by the assessee or any member of his family dependent on him. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-clause, "jewellery" includes- (a) ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal or any alloy containing one or more of such previous metals, whether or not containing any precious or semi-precious stone, and whether or not worked or sewn into any wearing apparel; (b) precious or semi-precious stones, whether or not set in any furniture, utensil or other article or wor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... noted that only those articles were to be included in the definition of "personal effects" which were intimately and commonly used by the assessee. It was also concluded in Faiz Murtaza Ali (supra) that the mode of acquisition of the articles was not material and what had to be examined was whether, in fact, the articles in question were in the personal use of the assessee. 6. Referring to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Himatlal C. Valia v. CIT: (2001) 248 ITR 262 (Guj.) as also to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. H H Maharani Usha Devi: (1998) 231 ITR 793 (SC), the Division Bench in Faiz Murtaza Ali (supra) observed that the frequency of use of an article was also not a relevant factor for determining whether the ar....