← All Phrases

“section 55(2)(ac)”

Capital GainsSection 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(ac)11 judgments

Judgments citing section 55(2)(ac)

Pioneer Independent Trust, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1143/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 55(2)(ac)

erroneous when the cost of acquisition for computing long term capital gain on transfer of units of equity-oriented funds is as per Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act and, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Respondent under Section 263 is bad in law and on facts ... issues. The assessee filed their reply to the said notice issued by the Ld.PCIT on 06/03/2025 in which the assessee had quoted the section 55(2)(ac) of the Act and submitted that the order of the AO is in accordance with the said provision and therefore the said order

Inder Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Shri Pranay Gandhi, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

Polycab Ltd, offered under "offer for sale at the time of Initial Public Offering (IPO); AY 2020-21 Provisions of Explanation to section 55(2)(ac) of the Act as applicable at the time when the impugned OFS transactions was entered into should be applied: 2. failed to appreciate ... existing at the time of the transaction, the computation mechanism in relation to determination of cost of shares offered under OFS as per section 55(2)(ac) of the Act fails, by virtue of which the capital gains cannot be computed and hence there can be no levy of capital

Ramesh Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 50(2)(ec)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(as)Section 56(2)(ac)

shares held in Polycab Ltd, offered under "offer for sale at the time of initial Public Offering (IPO); Provisions of Explanation to section 55(2)(ac) of the Act as applicable at the time when the Impugned OFS transactions was entered into should be applied. 2. failed to appreciate ... existing at the time of the transaction, the computation mechanism in relation to determination of cost of shares offered under OFS as per section 55(2)(ac) of the Act fails, by virtue of which the capital gains cannot be computed and hence there can be no levy of capital

Bharat Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

ITA 971/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bharat Jaisinghani Dcit, Central Circle 1302/B, Beau Monde 5(2), Room No. 427 Appasaheb Marathe Marg Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Prabhadevi, Mumbai-25 Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aeipj0261N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA, Shri
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 55Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

ought to have admitted the same and adjudicated judiciously and on merits in the course of the Appellate Proceedings; Provisions of Explanation to section 55(2)(ac) of the Act as applicable at the time when the impugned OFS transactions was entered into should be applied: 6. the learned ... offered under Offer for Sale ('OFS') ought to have been allowed, as the computation mechanism in relation to determination of cost as per section 55(2)(ac) of the Act fails, by virtue of which the capital gains cannot be computed and hence there can be no levy of capital

Girdhari Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 973/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Lekh Mehta, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

ought to have admitted the same and adjudicated judiciously and on merits in the course of the Appellate Proceedings; Provisions of Explanation to section 55(2)(ac) of the Act as applicable at the time when the impugned OFS transactions was entered into should be applied: 6. the learned ... offered under Offer for Sale ('OFS') ought to have been allowed, as the computation mechanism in relation to determination of cost as per section 55(2)(ac) of the Act fails, by virtue of which the capital gains cannot be computed and hence there can be no levy of capital

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

taxable at 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per section 112A of the Act subject to the cost step-up under section 55(2)(ac) of the Act. 5. The DRP decided the issue against the assessee and even differed with the view of AO to tax only

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

ought to have admitted the same and adjudicated judiciously and on merits in the course of the Appellate Proceedings: Provisions of Explanation to section 55(2)(ac) of the Act as applicable at the time when the impugned OFS transactions was entered into should be applied: 6. the learned ... offered under Offer for Sale ('OFS') ought to have been allowed, as the computation mechanism in relation to determination of cost as per section 55(2)(ac) of the Act fails, by virtue of which the capital gains cannot be computed and hence there can be no levy of capital

Shaila Noronha, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1040/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 54FSection 55(2)(ac)

appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and raised the issue for not allowing the claim of cost of shares as per the provisions of section 55(2)(ac) of the Act while computing long term capital gain under section 112A of the Act, non granting of deduction under section

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)

assigning nil value to bonus shares. 10. Without prejudice, the impugned Order has failed to address the prayer for alternate relief as per Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act which allows substitution of fair market value as at 31.01.2018 for being extended to bonus shares allotted prior ... every allotment of bonus shares, thus already meeting with the proposition of the SCN. ii Wipro shares acquired between 01.04.2001 and before 01.02.2018: Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act requires the FMV as on 31.01.2018 at Rs.308.95 per Wipro share to be reckoned as the cost of acquisition. This

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

rules made thereunder;” 30. If the conditions set out in Section 112A of the Act is fulfilled, then in terms of Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act, the ‘cost of acquisition’ of long term Shares acquired before 01.02.2018 shall be the higher of (a) cost of acquisition ... Section 112A(1)(iii) was not fulfilled. The AO thus denied the benefit of the deemed cost of acquisition claimed under Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act. The AO accordingly re- computed the taxable long-term capital gain at Rs.48,65,07,498/- and added it to the total

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

rules made thereunder;” 30. If the conditions set out in Section 112A of the Act is fulfilled, then in terms of Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act, the ‘cost of acquisition’ of long term Shares acquired before 01.02.2018 shall be the higher of (a) cost of acquisition ... Section 112A(1)(iii) was not fulfilled. The AO thus denied the benefit of the deemed cost of acquisition claimed under Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act. The AO accordingly re- computed the taxable long-term capital gain at Rs.48,65,07,498/- and added it to the total