← 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)

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4895/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

Mukul H Dalal, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2384/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 3Section 55Section 55(2)(ab)Section 55(2)(b)

option of the assessee. Since, section 55(2)(ab) applies in this case and as the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(i) relate to any other capital asset", the cost of the shares sold by the assessee have to be taken in accordance with' section 55(2 ... which the membership of the exchange was originally acquired by the assessee and there is no ground to adopt fair market value under section 55(2)(b)(i). c) The claim for adopting fair market value as on 01-04-1981 .in respect of shares sold is also not allowable

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1185/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1185/Mum/2009 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Dcit-1(1) बिधम/ M/S. Acc Ltd. Room No.579, Aayakar Cement House, 121, M. K. Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1507C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms.Shailja Rai (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2008 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -I Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2003- 04. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " L. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Directing To Delete The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unutilized Modvat Credit & Further In Directing To Allow The Relief Of Rs. 12,09,86,528/- Instead Of Rs. 3,21,85,825/-.” A.Y.2003-04 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition In Respect Of Corporation Tax Paid At Saudi Arabia Of Rs. 2,05,75,346/-.”

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms.Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 115JSection 154Section 251Section 80H

record.: - “21.3 I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. In my view, as per provisions of section 55(2)(b) of the Act, the appellant has an option to consider fair market value of the land as on 1.4.1981 as the cost of acquisition ... cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains and in view of the provision of 12 A.Y.2003-04 Section 55(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee was also entitled to reduce indexed cost of improvement as per provisions of second proviso to Section 48 of the Act. Accordingly

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Further the A.O. without confronting the assessee on this issue, has made the addition which is not justified. The provisions of Section 55(2) (b)(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that ... that valuation of shares as provided under Wealth Tax Rules is entirely inapplicable for the purpose of determining the fair market value under section 55(2)(b) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that Ground No. 4 raised by revenue deserves to be dismissed. 33. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Further the A.O. without confronting the assessee on this issue, has made the addition which is not justified. The provisions of Section 55(2) (b)(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that ... that valuation of shares as provided under Wealth Tax Rules is entirely inapplicable for the purpose of determining the fair market value under section 55(2)(b) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that Ground No. 4 raised by revenue deserves to be dismissed. 33. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Further the A.O. without confronting the assessee on this issue, has made the addition which is not justified. The provisions of Section 55(2) (b)(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that ... that valuation of shares as provided under Wealth Tax Rules is entirely inapplicable for the purpose of determining the fair market value under section 55(2)(b) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that Ground No. 4 raised by revenue deserves to be dismissed. 33. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Further the A.O. without confronting the assessee on this issue, has made the addition which is not justified. The provisions of Section 55(2) (b)(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that ... that valuation of shares as provided under Wealth Tax Rules is entirely inapplicable for the purpose of determining the fair market value under section 55(2)(b) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that Ground No. 4 raised by revenue deserves to be dismissed. 33. Ld. Counsel for the assessee