← All Phrases

“Section 55(2)(aa)”

Section References (mined)Section 55Section 55(2)(aa)22 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 55(2)(aa) is CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (355 ITR 14), cited in 61 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 55(2)(aa)

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.

Avani Exports v. CIT
348 ITR 391 · 2012 · High Court
56
citing judgments

A substantive amendment to tax law can only operate retrospectively if it benefits the assessee; it cannot be applied retrospectively to withdraw a benefit or detrimentally affect assessees, even if their assessments are pending or concluded.

Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT
168 ITR 493 · 1987 · High Court
30
citing judgments

Deduction for commission payments cannot be disallowed solely because summons served on commission agents were returned unserved, especially if the agents may have moved addresses years after the transactions.

CIT v. Avani
277 CTR 460 · 2015 · Reported
11
citing judgments

The Supreme Court affirmed the Gujarat High Court's decision that amendments to Section 10(23G) should not operate retrospectively to the detriment of assessees.

Judgments citing Section 55(2)(aa)

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

Surya Kant Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 4(2), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7828/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 55(2)(aa)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law , the Ld.CIT(A) has further grossly erred in not following the provisions of section 55(2)(aa) clause (iii)(a) in arriving at the cost of the 'bonus shares' as 'nil'. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... could not be considered by determining the cost of original shares sold during the year under consideration. This is also on par with Section 55(2)(aa)(iiia) of the Act where in the cost of bonus shares is to be taken as ‘Nil’ and the entire cost is liable