Supreme Court dismisses petition due to minimal tax impact, keeps legal question open; all pending applications resolved.Computation of capital gains on the sale of a capital asset - description of the previous owner and the period of holding of the asset by the assessee - Benefit of indexed cost of inflation - determination of indexed cost of acquisition - As decided by HC [ 2012 (2) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT] expression held by the assessee used in Explanation (iii) to Section 48 has to be understood in the context and harmoniously with other Sections. The cost of acquisition stipulated in Section 49 means the ... ... ... Title: Supreme Court Order - Special Leave Petition Dismissed

Judges: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol

Petitioner's Counsel: Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. and others

Respondent's Counsel: Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv. and others

Summary: The special leave petition was dismissed due to low tax effect. The question of law remains open, and pending applications are disposed of. Computation of capital gains on the sale of a capital asset - description of the previous owner and the period of holding of the asset by the assessee - Benefit of indexed cost of inflation - determination of indexed cost of acquisition - As decided by HC [ 2012 (2) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT] expression held by the assessee used in Explanation (iii) to Section 48 has to be understood in the context and harmoniously with other Sections. The cost of acquisition stipulated in Section 49 means the cost for which the previous owner had acquired the property. The term held by the assessee should be interpreted to include the period during which the property was held by the previous owner, thus decided against the Revenue. HELD THAT:- As petitioner submitted that the special leave petition would not survive for further consideration owing to low tax effect. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. In the circumstances, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed owing to the aforesaid reason. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX-VIII DELHI Versus TEJINDER PURI
Income Tax
2024 (1) TMI 875 - SC Order - TMI
SUPREME COURT - SC
Dated:- 16-1-2024
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31162/2012 - -
Income Tax
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For the Petitioner : Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Niranjna Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhas Upmanyu, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR ORDER UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following. Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned panel counsel for the petitioner submitted that the special leave petition would not survive for further consideration owing to low tax effect. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. In the circumstances, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed owing to the aforesaid reason. The question of law, if any, is kept open. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders