We Find That In The Impugned Order, The v. Manjula J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1517 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-19versus Shri. Sunil M. Shroff -------- Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. ............. ..Appellant ..Respondent CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 31[st] January, 2013 P.C.: In this appeal by the revenue, following questions have been framed for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the cost of acquisition to the assessee in a case where it was obtained by way of Will, has to be with reference to cost to the previous owner in which event the base value as on 01.04.1981 has to be worked out for applying the cost inflationindexmethodwithout appreciatingtheprovisionsof Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Act. b)Whether indexed cost of acquisition should be calculated by including the period of holding of the asset by the previous owner when the asset is inherited by the assessee through a 'Will'. We find that in the impugned order, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Manjula J. Shah in ITA No. 7315/MUM/07 dated 16.10.2009 and allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal. We find the revenue had carried the order of the Tribunal in the matter of Manjula J. Shah (Supra) to this court and this court by order dated 11.10.2011 in the matter of CIT v. Manjula J. Shah, reported in 2012(204) Taxman page 61 dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Since, the matter is covered by the decision of this court in the matter of Manjula J. Shah (Supra), we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)