Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.90

Section 55(2) falls under section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 90 (Meaning of “adjusted”, “cost of improvement” and “cost of acquisition”) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 90 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 55(2) is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294), cited in 628 of the 80 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 55(2)

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty
128 ITR 294 · 1981 · Supreme Court
628
citing judgments

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

PCIT v. Smt. Vidhi Agarwal
88 Taxmann.com 306 · 2017 · High Court
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 55(2)

ITO (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Monish Kaan Tahilramani, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4715/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Makwana- Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 53A

ITO, Ward-5(4) vs. Modern Home Care Products Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/DEL/2002[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 55

ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2126/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. Bidyut Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacw 6952 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangsingh, CIT, DRFor Respondent: None

Lakshman M. Charanjiva, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 28/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.28/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Income Tax Officer Lakshman M.Charanjiva (International Taxation-2(1)(1) 42, Nanik Niwas बनाम/ 16Th Floor, Air India Building, 30, Dr.D.D.Sathe Marg, Girguam Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Alopc-9901-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Biren Gabhawala, Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Biren Gabhawala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai vs. Kewal Chand Rathore, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 6

ITA 2657/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2657/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shri. Kewal Chand Rathore, Of Income Tax, No.24, Bangaru Reddy Street, Non Corporate Circle 10(1) Ayanawaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 023. [Pan Aagpk 0164K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: None
Section 48Section 55(2)

Asst CIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Krishna Pharmacy, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3947/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Asst. Cit 21(3) Vs. Shree Krishna Pharmacy R.No.209, 2Nd Floor Shop No.1, Shree Omkar Pirmal Chambers Chs, New Prabhadevi Lalbaug, Mumbai Road Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aasfs9139G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 48Section 50CSection 55

Ram Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 522/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 54F

Smt Shobha Kshetrapal, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1869/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoita Nos.1160 To 1162/Bang/2017 & Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.V.N. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)-I, ITAT
Section 45Section 48Section 49Section 49(1)Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

Smt Smitha Kshetrapal, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Bangalore

ITA 1162/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoita Nos.1160 To 1162/Bang/2017 & Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.V.N. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)-I, ITAT
Section 45Section 48Section 49Section 49(1)Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

Smt Soumya Kshetrepal, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Bangalore

ITA 1161/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoita Nos.1160 To 1162/Bang/2017 & Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.V.N. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)-I, ITAT
Section 45Section 48Section 49Section 49(1)Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

Smt Sapna Kshetrapal, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Bangalore

ITA 1160/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoita Nos.1160 To 1162/Bang/2017 & Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.V.N. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)-I, ITAT
Section 45Section 48Section 49Section 49(1)Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

Shri Prahlad Dass Mittal, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiprahlad Dass Mittal, Vs. Assessing Officer, Mittal Bhawan, 70, Darya Ward-31(1), Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aafpm6366G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prahlad Dass MittalFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 48Section 49(1)(ii)Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(ii)

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 3091/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Vipul Mody -ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

Shib Narayan Kshettry -HUF, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-38(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 723/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 55(2)

DCIT- CC-44, Mumbai vs. Jik Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4922/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Motwani
Section 143(3)

Samir Kumar Addy, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 29(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1097/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’ Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri L.K.Kanongo, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 45Section 48Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

Pralad Das Mittal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 5861/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kambleay: 2007-08 A N D Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.D.Mittal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R
Section 24Section 55(2)

ACIT 11(2), Mumbai vs. Ajay I.. Thakore, Mumbai

ITA 6917/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/6917 /Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-11(2) Shri Ajay I. Thakore Room No.479, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1416, Dalamal Tower, M.K. Road Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aabpt 0802 G आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6602/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Ajay I. Thakore Vs. Acit-11(2) Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.Murli Assessee By: Shri Ajay Indrajit Thakore सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.25/7/2011 Of The Cit(A)-3 Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal.Assessee, An Individual Filed His Return Of Income On 20/07/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.56.22 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 21. 12.2010,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2.40 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Indrajit ThakoreFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 254(1)Section 45Section 49Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(a)Section 55(2)(ii)

Arjun D. Chhabria, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 3242/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Goel
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 54F

Saroj Sales Organization, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2399/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Saroj Sales Organisation, Ito 16(1)(4), Plot No.A/62-63, Mumbai Vs. Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aaafs 3944H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B. Yadagiri, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2015

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, D.R
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 55(2)(a)