← All Phrases

“Section 55(2)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 55Section 55(2)(b)27 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 55(2)(b) is CIT v. Mythreyi Pai (152 ITR 247), cited in 44 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 55(2)(b)

CIT v. Mythreyi Pai
152 ITR 247 · 1985 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred towards the purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and therefore, interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

PCIT v. Saumya Construction
112 Taxmann.com 163 · 2019 · High Court
15
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be quashed if it is not based on any incriminating material found during a search.

152 Taxmann.com 535 (Guj HC) and Pr. CIT v. Ms. Kavita Agarwal
143 Taxmann.com 404 · 2022 · High Court
12
citing judgments

When assessing income from undisclosed sources found during a search, the Assessing Officer can proceed under section 153C based on incriminating material found in the possession of a third party, even if the assessment is limited to specific block periods.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel
242 ITR 582 · 2000 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Compensation paid to hutment dwellers for vacating land is an allowable expenditure in computing capital gains, as it relates to the transfer of the asset. Such payments are considered a cost of acquisition or improvement under Section 48 read with Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

1. CIT v. Duncan Brothers
209 ITR 44 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The actual cost of acquisition for capital gains purposes cannot be the fair market value (FMV) as provided under Section 55(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The FMV of an asset on a specified date, if chosen by the assessee, determines the cost of acquisition, not the other way around.

CIT v. Mandhar Singh Ji P. Jadeja
281 ITR 19 · 2005 · Reported
11
citing judgments

Provisions related to capital gains under Section 55(2)(b) and 55(3) do not apply in certain circumstances, particularly when capital gains are not the primary issue or when the subject matter falls outside the scope of these sections. This is supported by decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Judgments citing Section 55(2)(b)

Jaswin Kaur Sethi, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21 Jaswin Kaur Sethi, Vs Dcit, 218, Regency Park, International Taxation, Dlf Phase Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Enmps7327R

For Appellant: Ms Meenal Goyal CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55(2)(b)

this value was arrived on the basis of a valuation report dated 02.08.2018 given by a government approved valuer for the purpose of section 55(2)(b) of the Act. On the basis of this, the resultant capital gain of Rs.19,62,703/- was offered to tax in the return

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Delhi vs. Hkt Corporation Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 1036/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)

which date the asset was notified as the capital asset or is it to be computed as on 1.4.1981 in terms of Section 55(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The property held by the assessee became a capital asset as per the notification issued ... Section 55(2)(b), the cost of any improvement in relation to a capital asset means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations to the capital asset on or after 1st April, 1981 by the previous owner or the assessee. Admittedly, the asset which

The Asst. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2033/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

total consideration of ₹12,11,05,269/-. In its return of income, the assessee opted for the benefit available under section 55(2)(b) of the Act and adopted ₹437/- per square meter as the fair market value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981, which had been accepted

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

total consideration of ₹12,11,05,269/-. In its return of income, the assessee opted for the benefit available under section 55(2)(b) of the Act and adopted ₹437/- per square meter as the fair market value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981, which had been accepted

Daraius Homi Bilimoria, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-55, Mumbai

In the result, the various grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 2593/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Daraius Homi Bilimoria Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Hfk Madan, 308, Apeejay House, Vs (Appeals) -55, Mumbai. 130, Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan No. Aacpb4087E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 112Section 254(1)Section 48Section 55(2)(b)Section 55A

been allowed to substitute the cost of acquisition of the said property by the fair market value as on 01.04.2001 in accordance with section 55(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act (the Act). 12. That the Appellant ought to have been allowed to index the cost of acquisition

Sh. Rajinder Singh Bedi, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

taken into consideration for adjusting the Index Cost of acquisition. 7.2 The other aspect which is required to be kept in mind is Section 55(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. As observed earlier, the dispute essentially pertains to the ascertainment of Fair Market Value of the house property ... arrive at the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gain accruing as a result of transfer of such house. Section 55(2)(b) allows an option to the assessee to adopt the Fair Market Value of the house property as on 01.04.2001 as the cost of acquisition

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited, 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 940/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

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

Narendra Shankar Gavand, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Thane

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2010-11 Narendra Shankar Gavand, Ito, A-303, Pushp Parag, Chs Ward 3(1), Pokharan Road No.1, Thane Vs. Samta Nagar, Thane (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aehpg 2061E Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. (Dr)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 55(2)(b)

income of the appellant liable for tax, without granting appropriate deduction for indexed cost of acquisition of such rights, as per provisions of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and incorrectly dismissing the specific ground of appeal no. 3 raised before

Federation of Rajasthan Trade and Industry, Jaipur vs. ITO-Exemption Ward-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 217/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

year 1970 - During relevant assessment year, assessee sold said flat For purpose of computation of capital gains, assessee relied on provision of section 55(2)(b)(ii) - She disclosed value of flat in question as on 1-4- 1981 on basis of valuation report submitted by approved valuer - Assessing Officer ... Bench to kindly accept the cost of Acquisition of Rs. 6,55,000/- as on 01-04-1981 in terms of Section 55(2)(b) (i) & (ii) of Income Tax Act. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner Appeals has grossly erred in not allowing the opportunity of personal hearing

Prithviraj Lekkad Mallikarjun, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 226(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 55(2)(b)Section 55A

authorities below failed to appreciate that the cost of acquisition of the property acquired prior to 01.04.2001 has to be adopted as per section 55(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) Without prejudice, the learned assessing officer

M/S. Zash Traders, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 747/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, D.R
Section 250Section 55Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(b)

read that the provisions of Section 55(2)(aa) with all its sub-clauses have been made subject to the provisions of Section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act, and thus proceeded to assign a nil cost to bonus shares which became the property of the Appellant before ... what the law has granted to the Appellant. 6. That the impugned Order fails to appreciate the applicability of the express provisions of Section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act, in view of the unequivocal facts in the case of the Appellant that the listed equity shares of Wipro

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

confirming that the cost of remaining shares would include the cost of the shares cancelled on reduction. He submitted that; firstly, the said section 55(2)(b)(v) provides for the cost of shares of a company which became the property on happening of the events mentioned therein to mean

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

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

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

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

Smt. Monica Chattopadhya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-28(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2369/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

cost of construction and not the FMV as on 1.4.1981. In this regard, your Honours kind attention is invited to the provisions of section 55(2)(b) wherein FMV is allowed to be substituted at the option of the assessee if the capital asset is acquired prior ... original assessment proceedings. b) the grounds of appeal do not inter-alia included any ground challenging valuation being made dehors the provisions of section 55(2)(b) of the Act. 17. Thus Your Honours would note that the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal emerge from the order of the learned

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

furnished a copy of regd. Valuer Report dated 08.07.2006 regarding value of the said land as on 01.04.81 which can be taken under Section 55(2)(b)(i). The regd. Valuer has reported value of land as on 01.04.81 to the tune of Rs. 1986.57 per sq.mt. Perusal