TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e grounds raised by the department are as under: 1. "On the facts and circumstances in allowing of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition trust registered u/s. 48 of the Act to a u/s. 12A, disregarding dated 19.06.1968. the CBDT Circular No 5-P(LXX- 2. "On the facts and circumstances allowing accumulation of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in same being under section 11(1)(a) on capital gains, despite the resulting in already deemed as applied under section 11(1A), thereby double deduction". 3. "On the facts and circumstances to appreciate of the case and in law, he Ld. CIT(A) failed J.K. Synthetics the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital gain, the assessee had claimed deduction on account of property tax of Rs. 25,415/- and indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 5,03,17,362/- and offered net long term capital gain of Rs. 44,96,57,223/-. With reference to the claim of deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition, the A.O. referring to CBDT Circular No. 5P (LXX-6) dated 19.06.1968, held that such income has to be understood in its commercial sense and no indexation benefit is permissible. In this context, he also relied upon certain judicial precedents and ultimately disallowed assessee's claim of indexation benefit of Rs. 5,03,17,365/-. 6. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority. 7. While deciding the issue, bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e contrary, the reasoning of the first appellate authority is not only in line with the statutory provisions but also supported by judicial precedents referred to by him. Moreover, on a reading of the assessment order we are of the view that the A.O. per se has not questioned the application of the capital gain in acquisition of another capital asset, which in the instant case is investment made in fixed deposits. Thus, in our considered opinion, the decision of the first appellate authority on the issue suffers from no infirmity, hence, deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, we do so. Ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9. In ground nos. 2 and 3, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the first appellate authority in allowing assessee's claim o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charitable trust/organization in claiming deduction under both the provisions. In fact, in course of hearing, ld. DR could not bring to our notice any specific bar in the provisions preventing the assessee from claiming the deduction. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of the first appellate authority by dismissing the ground. 10. In ground no. 4, the department has challenged the decision of the first appellate authority in remanding the issue of donation to another trust claimed as accumulation of income u/s. 11(2) of the Act. 11. Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceeding, while verifying the return of income filed by the assessee, the A.O. had noted that the assessee had given donation of Rs. 2 crores ....