← All Phrases

“Section 55(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 55Section 55(2)164 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 55(2) is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294), cited in 628 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 55(2)

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty
128 ITR 294 · 1981 · Supreme Court
628
citing judgments

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-op. Ltd. v. ITO
55 Taxmann.com 447 · 2015 · High Court
267
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative society from temporary deposits with other banks, when such deposits are made from its business funds, qualifies as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and not as income from other sources.

CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce
55 ITR 722 · 1965 · Supreme Court
167
citing judgments

An organization qualifies as having a charitable purpose if its primary object is the advancement of general public utility, even if its members receive incidental benefits. The existence of incidental non-charitable objects does not negate its charitable status.

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.
273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania
196 ITR 55 · 1992 · High Court
103
citing judgments

A claim made by an assessee which requires further inquiry cannot be disallowed under section 143(1)(a)(iii) without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit supporting proof. The phrase 'prima facie inadmissible' means the claim is not admissible on the face of it and does not require further inquiry for disallowance.

CIT v. IBM India Ltd.
357 ITR 88 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Expenditure on application software, which enhances business efficiency and requires a computer system to function, constitutes revenue expenditure rather than acquisition of a capital asset, even if it provides an enduring benefit.

CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.
55 ITR 741 · 1965 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be strictly construed: the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly and explicitly imposes the obligation, without room for intendment or implication. There is no equity about a tax, and nothing is to be read into or implied within the language used.

CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd.
355 ITR 14 · 2013 · High Court
61
citing judgments

For Section 80IA and 80IB deductions, the profits of an eligible industrial undertaking or unit must be computed independently based on its actual profitability and market-rate inter-unit transactions, rather than applying a global profit margin of all the assessee's units.

Judgments citing Section 55(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Archana Dalmia, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3998/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3998/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), 14Th Floor, E-2 Block Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 11002 बनाम Vs. Archana Dalmia, 3, Sikandra Road, Kalmia House, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aagpd-7794-N Assessee By : S/Shri Kunal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant & Manish Agarwal, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2024, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Sold 23,500 Shares Of Durga Enterprises P. Ltd., During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal To Pyramid Commodities (P) Ltd. (Unrelated Party) For A Total Consideration Of Rs.19,97,50,000/-. The Assessee Suffered Long Term

For Appellant: S/Shri Kunal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 55(2)(b)

submitted that out of 23,500 shares, 6098 shares pertained to period prior to 01.04.1981 and as per the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(ii), in order to determine cost of acquisition, the assessee was eligible to opt for Cost or FMV of the capital asset, whichever is higher ... with Rs.120/- per share which resulted in the impugned addition. The assessee claimed deemed cost of acquisition in accordance with the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The AO observed that the value of the equity shares of the company is not acceptable, since, the value

Madhukar Wadhera, United States of America vs. AO Int Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Del, Civic Centre

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2220/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 2220/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Madhukar Wadhera, Vs Assessing Officer, 23, Turf Lane Roslyn Heights, Intl. Tax Circle-3(1)(1), New York, Usa-11577 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adrpw7079B Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Ao, Circle Intl. Tax-3(1)(1), Delhi, Assessment Order Dated 28.06.2023 Framed In Consequence To The Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”)-2, New Delhi Directions Dated 08.02.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

above cost of acquisition only; duly supported by a registered valuer, which has been negated in the assessment order in para 8.1 quoting section 55(2)(b)(ii) r.w. proviso thereto, for the purpose of rejecting the impugned claim. 3.1 This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have ... findings in light of the above statutory proviso. Faced with this situation, we note that the legislature has inserted the above proviso to section 55(2)(b)(ii) vide Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and the same is followed by the Explanatory Memorandum that it does not carry any retrospective