Which cases are most cited on Section 55(2)?

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) — 628 citing judgments; PCIT v. Smt. Vidhi Agarwal (88 Taxmann.com 306) — 5 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 55(2)?

BharatTax indexes 80 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) is the decision most relied on for Section 55(2), cited in 628 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.

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

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 55(2)

Sri Pradeep Kumar Deora., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - Xxiv, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 281/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 68

Ajay Kumar Doshi., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.Cir - 54, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1866/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Smt. Yashod Deora, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 30(3), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 835/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 68

Akhand Aabhar Co. Op. Hsg. Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2494/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002 - 03 Akhand Aabhar Co-Op Hsg. Soc. Asst Cit 19(3), Ltd., Mumbai Vs Plot No.332, Tps Iii, 21St Road, Near Hotel Commando, Bandra (W) Mumbai- 400 050 Pan Aaaaa6279N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Vipul Joshi & S M BandiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh

Section 133ASection 147Section 2(14)Section 45Section 48

Smt. Kapilaben K. Patel vs. A.C.I.T

Appeals stand allowed

TAXAP/295/2002HC Gujarat03 Dec 2014

Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt.) vs. Mohmed Yusuf Ismail Tadha

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

TAXAP/411/2003HC Gujarat16 Oct 2014

Section 45Section 47Section 48(2)Section 55(2)

Commissioner of Income Tax - VIII, New Delhi vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna

Appeal is disposed of

ITA-198/2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014

Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna

Appeal is disposed of

ITA - 198 / 2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014

Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Appeal is disposed of

ITA/198/2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014

Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

Thakur Dwara Shri Krishanji Maharaj Handiyaya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala and Anr

ITA/3/2014HC Punjab & Haryana18 Mar 2014

Section 260ASection 45Section 49Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Wintac Ltd

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/910/2006HC Karnataka19 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

Amora Chemicals (P) Ltd vs. C.I.T

In the result, we are of the opinion that in view of the

ITR/5/2002HC Gujarat28 Aug 2012

Section 45

C I T, Patiala vs. Raja Malwinder Singh, Patiala

ITR/578/1995HC Punjab & Haryana28 Jan 2011

Bench: This Bench In Pursuance Of Order Of Reference Dated October 1, 2010 As Under:- “1. Following Question Of Law Has Been Referred For Opinion Of This Court By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Arising Out Of Its Order Dated 19.12.1994 In Ita Nos.301/Chd/90 & 404/Chd/92 For The Assessment Years 1977-78 & 1979-80:- ‘Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellate Tribunal Was Right In Law In Holding That The Assets Which Were The Subject Matter Of Capital Gains Were Acquired By The Assessee For Nothing & That The Same Could Not Be Subjected To Capital Gains?’ 2. The Assessee Sold Certain Plots For Consideration & The Income Derived Therefrom Was Sought To Be Taxed As ‘Capital Gains’. The Cit(A) Reversed The View Taken By 1

Section 55(2)