TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove two appeals are different assessees. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common in nature, the above appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also disposed of both the appeals filed by the respondents herein by its common order. 3.In the Assessment Year 2012-13, the respondents-assessees, while filing the return of income on 29.08.2012, claimed exemption under Section 54F of Rs. 8 crores and Rs. 36.99 crores. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessees had been gifted "Trade Mark" by way of Settlement Deed dated 19.12.2010 by Mrs.Malathi Rangaswami and Mr.T.T.Varadarajan. Trade Mark being a capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stances of the case and in law, Tribunal was right and justified in holding that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F when the capital asset transferred was not a long term capital asset in view of Section 2(29A) r.w.s.2(42A) of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal erred in treating the asset held by assessee for less than four months as long term capital asset as against stipulation in Sec.2(29A) r.w.s 2(42A) is holding for more than 36 months? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that Expl.1(b) below sec.2(42A) is applicable and the period of holding of the asset by the previous owner also needs t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in Section 2(29A) read with Section 2(42A) is holding for more than 36 months? And iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that Explanation 1(b) of Section 2(42A) is applicable and the period of holding of the asset by the previous owner also needs to be considered even though the assessee did not receive the assset through gift or will as mentioned in Section 49(1)(ii) but by settlement deed?" 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/assessee. 4. The assessee, who is an individual, filed the return of income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was dismissed by the impugned order. 7. Going by the said document dated 19.12.2010, which was titled as settlement deed, the Assessing Officer held the same to be not a gift. The correctness of this finding was tested by the CIT(A), who, in our opinion, had done an elaborate factual exercise, gone through the covenants and conditions contained in the said document dated 19.12.2010 and held that the said document was only a deed of gift because it was voluntary as there was no consideration passed on and the donee accepted the gift unconditionally. The correctness of the factual finding was tested by the Tribunal, which had also gone through the issue in detail, taken note of the decision of the same Tribunal in the case of other owner....