← All Phrases

“Section 55(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 55Section 55(1)(b)5 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 55(1)(b) is CIT v. Mythreyi Pai (152 ITR 247), cited in 44 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 55(1)(b)

CIT v. Mythreyi Pai
152 ITR 247 · 1985 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred towards the purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and therefore, interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

MTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
129 TTJ 81 · 2010 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

Interest paid on delayed payment of service tax or sales tax is compensatory in nature and therefore, it is an allowable business expense. The same principle applies to interest levied for delayed payment of TDS.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel
242 ITR 582 · 2000 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Compensation paid to hutment dwellers for vacating land is an allowable expenditure in computing capital gains, as it relates to the transfer of the asset. Such payments are considered a cost of acquisition or improvement under Section 48 read with Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

1. CIT v. Duncan Brothers
209 ITR 44 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The actual cost of acquisition for capital gains purposes cannot be the fair market value (FMV) as provided under Section 55(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The FMV of an asset on a specified date, if chosen by the assessee, determines the cost of acquisition, not the other way around.

Judgments citing Section 55(1)(b)

Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

passed by the AO cannot be held to be erroneous as the same is in consonance with the stated provisions in Sub Section 55(1)(b) of the Act which apparently has skipped the attention of the Ld. PCIT. 21. Further, we refer to the provision of Explanation ... legislature. Therefore, the argument of the revenue which runs counter to the legislative intent cannot be accepted. [Para 20] Apart from the above, section 55(1)(b )(2)(ii) provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under section

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Kameswara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 48

owner or by the assessee. According to the High Court, having regard to the definition of the expression 'cost of improvement' contained in section 55(1)(b) in order to entitle the assessee to claim a deduction in respect of the cost of any Page No. 9 I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 Saripalli

Arjun Das Jasuja, Jabalpur vs. The CIT (It & Tp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.796/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Arjun Das Jasuja The Cit (It & Tp) बनाम/ 16, Nayagaon, Rampur Circle-2 V/S. Jebalpur Ahmedabad Madhya Pradesh – 462 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aehpj 3059 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nand Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

contractor. As per the learned CIT, the assessment order was passed without verifying the allowability of the cost of improvement as per Section 55(1)(b)(2) of the Act, and the failure to conduct this inquiry rendered the order erroneous and Arjun Das Jasuja vs. CIT (IT & TP) Asst ... revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act by wrongly holding that cost of improvement is not capital asset within the meaning of section 55(1)(b) (2) of the I.T. Act whereas the cost of improvements have been incurred for the property and not movable appliances and details

Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD. 6(2), Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

ITA 388/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54

understood as the first year in which the previous owner held the said property. iii. Apart from the above, Section 55(1)(b)(2)(i) of the Act provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under Section 49(1

Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD. 6(2), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

ITA 387/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54

understood as the first year in which the previous owner held the said property. iii. Apart from the above, Section 55(1)(b)(2)(i) of the Act provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under Section 49(1