← All Phrases

“full value of consideration”

Capital GainsSection 48Section 48587 judgments

The decision most relied on for full value of consideration is CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (66 ITR 622), cited in 82 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on full value of consideration

CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.
66 ITR 622 · 1967 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

The 'full value of consideration' for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or its predecessor, Section 12B of the 1922 Act), means the actual price bargained for and received or accrued by the parties. It does not refer to the market value or any notional value of the asset transferred.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh
309 ITR 233 · 2009 · High Court
55
citing judgments

The full value of consideration for computing capital gains under Section 48 refers to the amount stated in the sale deed and cannot be substituted by the market value or a valuation by the DVO under Section 55A, unless there is evidence that the assessee actually received a consideration in excess of the stated amount.

CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.
87 ITR 407 · 1973 · Supreme Court
51
citing judgments

The "full value of the consideration" for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or Section 12B(2) of the 1922 Act), means the price actually bargained for and agreed to by the parties, not the market value of the asset transferred. In a sale transaction involving a price, the market value of the consideration is not relevant.

Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT
161 ITD 627 · 2016 · ITAT
48
citing judgments

Dharmashibhai Sonani holds that if a statutory proviso is declaratory and curative, intended to remedy unintended consequences of a main provision, it should be given retrospective effect. This principle applies when determining the effective date of such provisos, including the third proviso to Section 50C(1).

CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd.
155 ITR 711 · 1985 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

Legal fictions and deeming provisions are created for definite purposes and must be limited strictly to that purpose, not extended beyond their legitimate field or the explicit mandate of the section. This principle requires strict interpretation of such provisions.

CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal
190 ITR 56 · 1991 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Payments made by an assessee to release property from an encumbrance or settle disputes, which are essential for a sale transaction to materialize, are allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act for computing capital gains. Such expenditure either reduces the full value of consideration or is deductible from it.

Atul G. Puranik v. ITO
132 ITD 499 · 2011 · ITAT
43
citing judgments

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a deeming provision, applies only to the transfer of "land or building or both" and therefore does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights.

Judgments citing full value of consideration

Meerams Overseas Private Limited, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 1975/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Meerams Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.471 Maruthi Nilaya 1St Cross, Ward – 1, Pavagada Road, Challakere, Davanagere. Chitradurga – 577 522. Pan : Aadcm 8322 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rattehalli Srikanta Murthy Badari Prasad, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Ex-Parte Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067240065(1)] Dated 01.08.2024 On The Ground That Addition Confirmed By The Cit(A) Of Rs.66,50,290/- Towards Non-Furnishing Of Proof Of Cost Of Improvements While Calculating Capital Gains. The Assessee On 07.02.2015 Sold A Property For A Total Value Of Rs.1,25,00,000/- & It Was Shown As Full Value Of Consideration Received-. The Property Was Purchased On 21.06.2004 For A Total Value Of Rs.25,97,466/- & Claimed Indexed Cost Of Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Rattehalli Srikanta Murthy Badari Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

capital gains. The assessee on 07.02.2015 sold a property for a total value of Rs.1,25,00,000/- and it was shown as full value of consideration received-. The property was purchased on 21.06.2004 for a total value of Rs.25,97,466/- and claimed indexed cost of Page