Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

DCIT vs. Manjula Shah (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench)

DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 5, 2009 (Date of publication)

Click here to download the judgement (manjula_shah_indexed_cost_gift.pdf)

Indexed cost of gifted assets has to be determined with reference to previous owner

The assessee transferred a capital asset which was received by her by way of gift on 1.2.2003. The previous owner had acquired the capital asset on 29.1.1993. In computing capital gains, the assessee claimed that the indexed cost of acquisition had to be worked out by taking the date of acquisition by the previous owner. The AO rejected the claim though the CIT (A) accepted it. On appeal by the Revenue, the issue was referred to the Special Bench. HELD by the Special Bench:

(i) Explanation (iii) to s. 48 defines the term “indexed cost of acquisition” to mean the amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as the …. Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee …” A literal reading of the provision suggests that one has to go by the year in which the asset was held by the assessee. However, this would be inconsistent with the scheme of the Act as reflected in the definition of “short-term capital asset” in Expl. 1(b) to s. 2 (42A) which provides that the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner also has to be taken into account. It is not logical that the cost of acquisition and the period of holding is determined with reference to the previous owner and the indexation factor is determined with reference to the date of acquisition by the assessee. Such an interpretation will lead to absurdity and unjust results and defeat the purpose of the concept of ‘indexed cost of acquisition’. In accordance with the principles of purposive interpretation of statutes, Expl. (iii) to s. 48 has to be read to mean that the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed by taking into account the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner.

Kishore Kanugo 102 ITD 437 (Mum) is reversed while Meena Devgan 117 TTJ 121 (Kol) and Pushpa Sofat 81 ITD 1 (Chd) (SMC) are approved.

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal




If you are a tax professional, you must sign up for our free newsletter. Why? Because we keep you informed about the latest developments in the world of tax. We focus only on the most important must-read judgements & articles that will impact your day-to-day professional work. You can see a chronological listing of all our postings on twitter & facebook

IMPORTANT: After signing up & clicking on the confirmation mail, send a test/ blank mail to Why? Because it is the easiest way to add our email address to your address/ contacts book and ensure that our Newsletter does not get sent to the Spam/ Junk folder