Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing B.N. Vyas (Guardian Of Minor, B.B. Vyas) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 March, 1985

Mr. Jaiprakash A. Mishra, Mumbai vs Ito 22 (1)(4), Mumbai on 30 March, 2021

2.9. Apart from the above, s. 55(1)(b)(2)(ii) of the Act provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under s. 49(1) of the Act, not only the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee but also the cost of improvement incurred by the previous owner shall be deducted from the total consideration received by the assessee while computing the capital gains under s. 48 of the Act. The question of deducting the cost of improvement incurred by the previous owner in the case of an assessee covered under s. 49(1) of the Act would arise only if the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner is included in determining the period for which the asset was held by the assessee. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that in the case of an assessee covered under s. 49(1) of the Act, the capital gains liability has to be computed by considering that the assessee held the said asset from the date it was held by the previous owner and the same analogy has also to be applied in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. For determining the capital gain, the cost of acquisition of capital asset is crucial. Thus, keeping in view, the totality of facts, we hold that the long terms capital gains has to be from the date from which the capital asset in question was held by the previous owner and the indexed cost of acquisition also has to be determined on the very same basis, consequently, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of such asset. The ratio laid down in B.N. Vyas vs CIT (1986) 159 ITR 141 (Guj.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Deepak Raj Narang on 18 June, 1987

5. The above decision of the Gujarat High Court was not considered by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal and it was not taken into consideration by the Chandigarh Bench as well. In view of this, we hold that the view taken by the two Benches do not represent the correct position in law. This decision of the Gujarat High Court was followed by that very High Court in the case of B.N. Vyas v. CIT [1986] 25 Taxman 133. Their Lordships have clearly held that the cost of acquisition can have only one meaning with respect to a particular asset and it was not necessary to consider the value when it became capital asset under law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Ajit Vikram Singh on 9 October, 1987

Replying to the contention of the assessee's Counsel that even in computing capital gains the cost of the capital asset has to be taken as the market value on the date on which the asset in question was converted into a capital asset, the Departmental Representative relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ranchhodbhai Bhaijibhai Patel v. CIT [1971] 81ITR 446 and again in B.N. Vyas v. CIT [1986] 25 Taxman 133.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Jayanti Vasishta, Bangalore vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), ... on 19 January, 2024

5. The AO issued show cause notice on 04.12.2018 in this regard. The assessee replied objecting to the imitating of reassessment proceedings and relying on B. N. Vyas v Commissioner of Income Tax held in Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat [1986] 25 Taxman 133 (Gujrat) submitted that cost has to be considered is the cost incurred by the previous owner and indexation benefit has to be from inception irrespective of whether the asset was capital asset or not. The AO ITA No.687/Bang/2023 Page 6 of 17 rejected the submissions of the assessee and observed that the assessee has not invested any amount from sale consideration on sale of flat and it was not an authorized construction. The AO disallowed the cost of acquisition and made addition of Rs.3,20,662. Further, the AO disallowed cost of construction amounting to Rs.35,49,590 claimed by the assessee for 2505 sq.ft. @ 750/sq.ft. Accordingly, the assessed income was Rs.69,73,065.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1