← All Phrases

“Section 55(2)(b)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 55Section 55(2)(b)(ii)11 judgments

POONAM DHANANJAY SANDU,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 2050/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(3)Section 270A(9)Section 54

inheritance, which falls under the scope of Section 49(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The Appellant, in accordance with Section 55(2)(b)(ii), has opted to adopt the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.2001 as the cost of acquisition, since the property became the asset ... taken the cost of acquisition as Nil, thereby violating express statutory provisions and causing grave prejudice to the Appellant. Legal Position: 1. Section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act clearly states: Where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under Section

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 ... 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)

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 given ... 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 effect

NARENDRA SHANKAR GAVAND,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), THANE, 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)

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 the Hon. CIT(A) as general/consequential in nature

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

NARENDRA KANTILAL BANTHIA ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1319/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: None
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 55(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S

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)

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 of computing

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

Wealth Tax Act is not applicable, while arriving at the fair market value of shares as on 01.04.81 for the purpose of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act; (e) There is conceptual difference between fair market value of assets while computing capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003 ... Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define u/s 2(22A) of the Act and thus for the purposes of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act it is a fair market value under the Income Tax Act which has to be adopted; 33.1. Ld. Counsel

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

Wealth Tax Act is not applicable, while arriving at the fair market value of shares as on 01.04.81 for the purpose of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act; (e) There is conceptual difference between fair market value of assets while computing capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003 ... Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define u/s 2(22A) of the Act and thus for the purposes of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act it is a fair market value under the Income Tax Act which has to be adopted; 33.1. Ld. Counsel

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

Wealth Tax Act is not applicable, while arriving at the fair market value of shares as on 01.04.81 for the purpose of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act; (e) There is conceptual difference between fair market value of assets while computing capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003 ... Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define u/s 2(22A) of the Act and thus for the purposes of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act it is a fair market value under the Income Tax Act which has to be adopted; 33.1. Ld. Counsel

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

Wealth Tax Act is not applicable, while arriving at the fair market value of shares as on 01.04.81 for the purpose of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act; (e) There is conceptual difference between fair market value of assets while computing capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003 ... Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define u/s 2(22A) of the Act and thus for the purposes of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act it is a fair market value under the Income Tax Act which has to be adopted; 33.1. Ld. Counsel