Itxa/10/2013 Of Director Of Income Tax (It) - I v. Viren N. Desai
High Court
01 Apr 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/10/2013 Of Director Of Income Tax (It) - I v. Viren N. Desai
Date of order
01 Apr 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/10/2013 Of Director Of Income Tax (It) - I v. Viren N. Desai, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
sas
itxa10-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.10 OF 2013
Director of Income Tax (IT)-I, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
Viren N. Desai
..Respondent.
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2013
P.C. :-
1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2007-08, following question of law has been raised for our consideration:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in granting indexation from the date of acquisition of the asset by the previous owner and from the date of the acquisition of the asset by the previous owner and not
itxa10-13
from the date the asset came to be held by the inheritor, when provisions of the explanation (iii) to section 48 provides for indexation benefit from the year in which the asset was held by the assessee and not the previous owner ? ”
2.The Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee by following the decision of this Court dated 11[th] October, 2011 in the matter of The Commissioner of Income-12 V/s. Manjula J. Shah in Income Tax Appeal No.3378 of 2010. Counsel for the revenue does not dispute that the aforesaid issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Manjula J. Shah (supra). In that view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.