Itxa.1801.13.Odt v. Manjula J. Shah 68 Dtr 269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1801 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai ..Appellant Vs.Nirmala Ramnath Kini..Respondent .... Mrs. S.V. Bharucha, Advocate for Appellant.Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Advocate i/b Vipul Joshi for Respondent. .... CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.DATED : 2 SEPTEMBER 2015 P.C.: This appeal challenges the order dated 18 March 2013passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This appeal relates tothe Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Following question of law is urged for our consideration: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Tribunal was justified inupholding the order of the CIT(A) to determine theLong Term Capital Gain taking into account theindexed cost of acquit ion of the asset as on S.S.DESHPANDE 01.04.1981 when the previous owner first held theasset, ignoring that the assessee become owner ofthe asset to the extent of 1/3[rd] share on09/04/2001, further 1/6[th] share on 27/06/2004and 22/09/2006 and remaining 1/3[rd] share on20/09/2006 i.e. after the death of previous owner?” 3.The challenge by the revenue before the Tribunal wasacceptance of Long Term Capital Gain by taking indexed cost ofacquisition as on 1 April 1981 instead of the date on which theassessee received shares as a consequence on the death of herhusband by the CIT(A). The impugned order of the Tribunal hasdismissed the revenue's appeal following the decision of this Courtin CIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah 68 DTR 269. 4.In the above view, no question of law arises for ourconsideration. Accordingly appeal dismissed. [G.S. KULKARNI, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]