← 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)

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1761/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

case of goodwill arising out of amalgamation, the cost in the hands of target company would be NIL by virtue of section 55(2) (a) (ii) and, target company would be NIL by virtue of section 55(2) (a) (ii) and, target company would be NIL by virtue of section ... section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

case of goodwill arising out of amalgamation, the cost in the hands of target company would be NIL by virtue of section 55(2) (a) (ii) and, target company would be NIL by virtue of section 55(2) (a) (ii) and, target company would be NIL by virtue of section ... section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

Mrs Pushpa R. Chawla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(5), Mumabi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 2864/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemrs. Pushpa R. Chawla V. Ito-Ward-23(2)(5) 143/B Wing, Nibbana Chs Room No. 116, 1St Floor Pali Hill Road, Bandra West Matru Mandir, Tardeo Mumbai- 400051 Mumbai- 400007

Section 143(2)Section 148

imminently possible and in the given facts. That is also possible in the light of the legal position as noted by language of section 55(2) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1, which is in the field

Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2322/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 14ASection 55(2)Section 55(2)(aa)

books of accounts, where as the provisions of sec. 55(2) would govern computation of capital gains. Accordingly, the provisions of section 55(2) cannot be imported into sec.14A of the Act. 6. The Ld A.R next contended that the suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee was sufficient enough

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

that the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset is bound to be computed in accordance with section 50. In other words, section 55(2) is applicable only in respect of sections 48 and 49 and it has no application to section 50. Thus, where more than one High Court ... understood the provisions contained in section 50 and section 55(2) in a particular manner, it is not open to give a different interpretation other than what was given by the various High Courts as stated above. It cannot be said that there is any debatable issue in the matter

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

that the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset is bound to be computed in accordance with section 50. In other words, section 55(2) is applicable only in respect of sections 48 and 49 and it has no application to section 50. Thus, where more than one High Court ... understood the provisions contained in section 50 and section 55(2) in a particular manner, it is not open to give a different interpretation other than what was given by the various High Courts as stated above. It cannot be said that there is any debatable issue in the matter

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

that the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset is bound to be computed in accordance with section 50. In other words, section 55(2) is applicable only in respect of sections 48 and 49 and it has no application to section 50. Thus, where more than one High Court ... understood the provisions contained in section 50 and section 55(2) in a particular manner, it is not open to give a different interpretation other than what was given by the various High Courts as stated above. It cannot be said that there is any debatable issue in the matter

DCIT Circle - 16(1), New Delhi vs. Aruna Chandhok, New Delhi

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 387/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Smt Aruna Chandhok, Circle-16(1), H-30, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Delhi-110062 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepc7861R

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

shares would not be income at all. It was also submitted that cost of bonus shares would be Rs Nil in terms of section 55(2)(aa)(i) of the Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) duly distinguished the various case laws relied upon by the ld. AO. We find ... sale of bonus shares as and when it happens because cost of acquisition of bonus shares is nil as per the provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Smt Aruna Chandhok 9.13 The AO also erred in concluding that the provisions of section 55(2

M/S. Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1638/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Gyaneshwar Kataram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha (SR. AR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 55(2)(b)

regard to the issue as to assessing the fair market value of the property which has not been considered by the AO under section 55(2)(b)(ii), whereas the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal was challenging the addition made by the AO on account

Jm Financial Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3987/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

short term short term capital loss of Rs.465,44, 19.508/- be accepted as a genuine short term capital loss. Ground III; Applicability of Section 55(2)(aa) for calculating the amount of Long-term capital loss and Short-term capital loss on sale of shares of JM Financial Products ... case, the Appellant prays that the conclusion reached by the learned C1T (A) on the non-applicability of the provisions of Section 55(2)(aa) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the shares of a private limited company is not correct and that such loss is determined by spreading

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3925/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

short term short term capital loss of Rs.465,44, 19.508/- be accepted as a genuine short term capital loss. Ground III; Applicability of Section 55(2)(aa) for calculating the amount of Long-term capital loss and Short-term capital loss on sale of shares of JM Financial Products ... case, the Appellant prays that the conclusion reached by the learned C1T (A) on the non-applicability of the provisions of Section 55(2)(aa) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the shares of a private limited company is not correct and that such loss is determined by spreading

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4268/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

adopted the cost of acquisition of one equity share as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 1675/- per share by invoking the provisions of section 55(2)(b) of the Act by treating the value as the FMV. In support of such valuation, the assessee furnished ... much after the date of relevant balance sheet is not relevant at all in determining the FMV of unquoted shares of EKPL under section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. He further observed that the assessee was allotted unquoted shares of EKPL from time to time during the period

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3776/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

adopted the cost of acquisition of one equity share as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 1675/- per share by invoking the provisions of section 55(2)(b) of the Act by treating the value as the FMV. In support of such valuation, the assessee furnished ... much after the date of relevant balance sheet is not relevant at all in determining the FMV of unquoted shares of EKPL under section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. He further observed that the assessee was allotted unquoted shares of EKPL from time to time during the period

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

shares held by the Appellant at the end of the year shall be considered to have a ‘Nil’ cost of acquisition as per Section 55(2)(aa)(iiia) of the Act while computing the taxability under the head Capital Gain. However, the said shares shall be recognized differently

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC 5(2) Central Range-5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wellknown Business Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agrawal/HiteshFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad (CIT-DR) (on 12.04.2023)/ Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 133A

shares. As far as the cost of acquisition is concerned, the original cost of these shares is not relevant, as in terms of Section 55(2)(b) of the Act, the prevailing Fair Market Value (‘FMV’) as on 01.04.2001 shall be regarded as the deemed cost of acquisition ... rules made thereunder;” 30. If the conditions set out in Section 112A of the Act is fulfilled, then in terms of Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act, the ‘cost of acquisition’ of long term Shares acquired before 01.02.2018 shall be the higher of (a) cost of acquisition

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC 5(2) Central Range-5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wellknown Business Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1948/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agrawal/HiteshFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad (CIT-DR) (on 12.04.2023)/ Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 133A

shares. As far as the cost of acquisition is concerned, the original cost of these shares is not relevant, as in terms of Section 55(2)(b) of the Act, the prevailing Fair Market Value (‘FMV’) as on 01.04.2001 shall be regarded as the deemed cost of acquisition ... rules made thereunder;” 30. If the conditions set out in Section 112A of the Act is fulfilled, then in terms of Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act, the ‘cost of acquisition’ of long term Shares acquired before 01.02.2018 shall be the higher of (a) cost of acquisition

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. U K Paints India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

thereafter, 11 noted that acquisition of capital asset being right to carry in JV Co. has to be computed as per provision of Section 55(2)(a) of the Act. According to AO the cost of acquisition of capital assets being right to carry any business investments and financing ... allowable to dissect the consolidated bargained price into trenches/pieces and then fix the notional liability under capital 13 gains with artificial reference to section 55(2)(a) (deemed NIL Cost). This is supported by Supreme Court in Vodafone’s case 341 ITR Page 1 where it is interalia observed

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

thereafter, 11 noted that acquisition of capital asset being right to carry in JV Co. has to be computed as per provision of Section 55(2)(a) of the Act. According to AO the cost of acquisition of capital assets being right to carry any business investments and financing ... allowable to dissect the consolidated bargained price into trenches/pieces and then fix the notional liability under capital 13 gains with artificial reference to section 55(2)(a) (deemed NIL Cost). This is supported by Supreme Court in Vodafone’s case 341 ITR Page 1 where it is interalia observed

Swadeshi Polytex Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

ITA 5592/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Swadeshi Polytex Limited Vs. Ito, A-1, Sector-17, Ward-22(4), Kavi Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan: Aalcs4058E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 50C

entitled to discredit the fair market value taken by the assessee without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer as per the section 55(2) of the Act. It was further submitted that Ld. AO failed to take into consideration the fact that while making necessary compliances for approval

Farooq Abdulla Merchant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

allowed deduction of expenditure incurred by assessee to remove encumbrance to transfer - Held, yes [1991] 58 TAXMAN 106 (BOM) Section 48, read with section 55(2), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Capital gains - Computation of - Commissioner of Income-tax V. Assessment year ... expenditure which can be claimed under that section in case a person has exercised option under 28 Farooq Abdulla Merchant Case Laws Citations section 55(2)(i) - Held, no Section 55(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Cost of acquisition Assessment year 1968-69 Whether Tribunal