Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Subodh Gupta (HUF) v. PCIT ( 2018) 169 ITD 60 /166 DTR 153 / 193 TTJ 442(Delhi)(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 56: Income from other sources –Relative – Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)- Gift by the mother of the Karta of the HUF, to the HUF is liable to be taxed as the mother can not be considered as member of HUF – Revision was held to be justified – Assessee was directed to produce valuation report as per rule 11UA . [ S. 2(31 ), 56(2)(vii) ,263 ]

Minda SM Tecnocast Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018) 170 ITD 12 (Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 56 : Income from other sources -Under valuation of shares -The “fair market value” of shares acquired has to be determined by the taking the book values of the underlying assets and not their market values [S. 56(2)(viia) R.11UA ]

PCIT v. Vidhi Agarwal ( Smt.) (2018) 252 Taxman 395 (All.)(HC)

S. 55 : Capital gains – Cost of improvement – Cost of acquisition – Approved valuer’s report itself is a piece of evidence and Act does not require that opinion of approved valuer should have been supported with further evidence in shape of circle rate or exemplar sale deeds etc, value as on 1-4-1981 on the basis of approved valuer was held to be valid [ S. 45, 55(2)(b)(ii) ]

Laxmi Narayan v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 117/( 2019) 306 CTR 361 (Raj) (HC) Shravan lal Meena L/H of Late Bhagwanta Meena v.ITO (2018) 402 ITR 117/( 2019) 306 CTR 361 (Raj) (HC) Mahadev Balaji v .ITO (2018) 402 ITR 117 /( 2019) 306 CTR 361(Raj) (HC)

S. 54B : Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes – Investment in the name of wife was held to be entitle to exemption .The word used are the assessee has to invest , it is not specified that it is to be in the name of assessee. Expenditure on bore wells and stamp duty to be taken in to consideration while considering the exemption [ S. 45, 263 ]

Dipankar Mohan Ghosh, In Re (2018) 401 ITR 129/ 301 CTR 42 /163 DTR 21 (AAR)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Investment in residential house outside India was held eligible for exemption ( Prior to amendment with effect from 1-4-2015 by Finance (No. 2) ACT, 2014). [ S. 45, 54F ]

Rajat B. Mehta v. ITO ( 2018)169 ITD 178/ 163 DTR 49/ 192 TTJ 307/ 62 ITR 334( Ahd)(Trib)

S. 54: Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence –Cost included furniture and fixtures –Exemption cannot be denied only on the ground that no claim was made in the return , if he is otherwise entitle to it .[ S.45 ]

Seema Sabharwal v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 319/ 193 TTJ 128/ 163 DTR 253 (Chd)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 54: Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – If entire consideration was paid with in three years the assessee is entitle to exemption [ S.45, 54F ]

ITO v. Southern Steel Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 126 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Distress sale -Transactions between Government entities, provision cannot be applied . [ S. 45 ]

JCIT v. D. Sesha Giri Rao. (2018) 168 ITD 287 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation -Assessee was not a real owner of property and he transferred same on representative basis, provisions of section 50C could not be applied to assessee’s case in order to compute capital gain arising from sale of said property [ S.45 ]

L & T Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 168 ITD 52 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 50B : Capital gains – Slump sale –Transfer of individual assets to sister concern without transfer of undertaking or business activity as a whole cannot be considered as slump sale [ S. 2(19AA), 2(42C ) ]