← All Phrases

“Section 55(2)(b)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 55Section 55(2)(b)(i)17 judgments

BALAJI FINANCE,GAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1375/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

further\nsubmitted that since the land was purchased prior to 01.04.2001,\nas per the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act, the fair\nmarket value as on 01.04.2001, amounting to Rs.7,26,000/-, is\nrequired to be adopted as the cost of acquisition. On this basis

LATE SHRI KHEMRAJ PATIDAR (THROUGH WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHAGWATI PATIDAR),BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 2(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 748/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 2(14)Section 48

were not available, the fair market\nvalue of land as on 01.04.1981 has to be allowed as 'cost of\nacquisition' in terms of section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act, which has not\nbeen done by AO.\n(iii) The AO has adopted Stamps Authority Valuation of Rs.37

SUMANBEN JASHVANTBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 80/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 55A

instances\nor documentary proof of comparable properties sold around 1981 to substantiate\nthe claimed rate of Rs.1,000 per sq. meter.\n8.2\nUnder section 55(2)(b)(i), where a capital asset became the property of the\nassessee before 01.04.1981, the assessee may adopt the FMV as on that date

SMT. SHEETAL RASHMIN PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE I. T. O. WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical\npurposes

ITA 182/RJT/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08
Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nSHRI

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)

either by himself or the previous owner) - fair market value as on 1 April 2001 (i.e. Rs. 126.40 per shares) in terms of section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act Bonus shares received after 1 April 2001 – Nil” 10. The sequence of events for the said transaction is tabulated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRLCE-2, LUDHIANA vs. RAWALPINDI CO-OP CINEMA SOCIETY LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 552/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 153C

Rawalpindi Coop Cinema Society ltd., Ludhiana 16 calculating cost of acquisition for calculating of capital gain and thereby, ignoring the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The appellant craves leave so add. amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid

RAWALPINDI CO-OP CINEMA SOCIETY LIMITED SOCIETY CINEMA LUDHIANA, PUNJAB,LUDHIANA, PUNAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 180/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 153C

Rawalpindi Coop Cinema Society ltd., Ludhiana 16 calculating cost of acquisition for calculating of capital gain and thereby, ignoring the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The appellant craves leave so add. amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid

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
Section 250Section 55Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(b)

read\nthat the provisions of Section 55(2)(aa) with all its sub-clauses have been\nmade subject to the provisions of Section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act, and thus\nproceeded to assign a nil cost to bonus shares which became the property\nof the Appellant before ... what the law has\ngranted to the Appellant.\n6. That the impugned Order fails to appreciate the applicability of the\nexpress provisions of Section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act, in view of the\nunequivocal facts in the case of the Appellant that the listed equity shares\nof Wipro

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SARASWATI DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4268/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

adopted the cost of acquisition of one equity share as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 1675/- per share by invoking the provisions of section 55(2)(b) of the Act by treating the value as the FMV. In support of such valuation, the assessee furnished ... much after the date of relevant balance sheet is not relevant at all in determining the FMV of unquoted shares of EKPL under section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. He further observed that the assessee was allotted unquoted shares of EKPL from time to time during the period

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MR. GUN NIDHI DALMIA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3776/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

adopted the cost of acquisition of one equity share as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 1675/- per share by invoking the provisions of section 55(2)(b) of the Act by treating the value as the FMV. In support of such valuation, the assessee furnished ... much after the date of relevant balance sheet is not relevant at all in determining the FMV of unquoted shares of EKPL under section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. He further observed that the assessee was allotted unquoted shares of EKPL from time to time during the period

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO., MUMBAI

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

ITA 5259/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

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

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