V. Dwarakanathan v. Asstt. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 2973 of 2020
2020 TaxPub(DT) 4922 (SC) : (2021) 276 TAXMAN 0078

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Sections 45 & 49

Where the assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in V. Dwarakanathan v. Asstt. CIT [Tax Case Appeal No. 308 of 2019, dt. 10-6-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6056 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that Tribunal, on facts, rightly concluded that the provisions of section 49 did not apply to the facts of the case, since the said provisions envisage only where the capital asset becomes the property of the assessee, then the cost of acquisition of the asset will have to be reckoned on the basis of cost of acquisition to the previous owner, and otherwise not, that the Tribunal faulted the assessee in not furnishing any evidence either before the AO or before the CIT(A), or before the Tribunal that he held the gift by way of registered document and that the donor, his daughter, Mrs. MA had sufficient source for cash during the assessment year 2009-10 to invest such huge cash in 3,00,000 equity shares and therefore, on facts, the Tribunal approved the finding of the AO that the transaction was entirely bogus, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.

Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Capital gains - Computation -- Cost of acquisition to previous owner under section 49 -- Genuineness of gift by donor, being daughter of assessee

Assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in V. Dwarakanathan v. Asstt. CIT [Tax Case Appeal No. 308 of 2019, dt. 10-6-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6056 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that Tribunal, on facts, rightly concluded that the provisions of section 49 did not apply to the facts of the case, since the said provisions envisage only where the capital asset becomes the property of the assessee, then the cost of acquisition of the asset will have to be reckoned on the basis of cost of acquisition to the previous owner, and otherwise not, that the Tribunal faulted the assessee in not furnishing any evidence either before the AO or before the CIT(A), or before the Tribunal that he held the gift by way of registered document and that the donor, his daughter, Mrs. MA had sufficient source for cash during the assessment year 2009-10 to invest such huge cash in 3,00,000 equity shares and therefore, on facts, the Tribunal approved the finding of the AO that the transaction was entirely bogus. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : SLP dismissed

A.Y. :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA