← 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)

Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited, Tamil Nadu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 844/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhristerling Holiday Resorts Ltd Vs. Dcit – Circle 2(3)(1) 236, 4Th Floor, Purva Room No. 552, 5Th Primus, Okkiyampettai, Old Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahabalipuram Road, Mk Road, New Marine Thoraipakkam, Chennai, Lines, Mumbai – 400 Tamil Nadu – 600 097. 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabct7079G (Applicant) (Respondent) Acit – Circle 2(3)(1) Vs. Sterling Holiday Resorts Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 236, 4Th Floor, Purva Road, New Marine Lines, Primus, Okkiyampettai, Mumbai – 400 020 Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 097. Pan/Gir No. Aabct7079G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 48Section 55(2)(b)

Kodaikanal. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant company had exercised the option under section 55(2)(b) of the Act and substituted fair market value of land as on 1 April 2001 as cost of acquisition. 3.3. Based ... cost of acquisition. 3.4. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO has erred in not follow the provisions of section 48 read with section 55(2)(b) of the Act which provides for indexing the actual cost or fair market value as on 1 April 2001 whichever is higher should

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce-2, Ludhiana vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Society Ltd, Ludhiana

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 552/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 153C

Rawalpindi Coop Cinema Society ltd., Ludhiana 16 calculating cost of acquisition for calculating of capital gain and thereby, ignoring the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The appellant craves leave so add. amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid

Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Society Limited Society Cinema Ludhiana, Punjab, Ludhiana, Punab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 180/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 153C

Rawalpindi Coop Cinema Society ltd., Ludhiana 16 calculating cost of acquisition for calculating of capital gain and thereby, ignoring the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The appellant craves leave so add. amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid