Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Shyam Sunder Bajaj v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 253 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Capital gains-Long term capital gains on sale of shares-Penny stock companies-Failed to establish genuineness of rise of price of shares within a short period of time that too when general market trend was recessive-Addition is affirmed.[S. 10(38), 45]

P. Srinivasan. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 287/223 TTJ 902 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Gift from uncle-Constructive gift from uncle-Addition is deleted.[S. 56(2)(vii), 68]

SB Industrial Engineering (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 282 /223 TTJ 651 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Valuation of shares-Premium-DCF method-Minor difference in projected and actual financials-Rejection of DCF method adopted is unjustified.[S. 56(2)(viib )

S. Ramesh. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 275 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Stamp duty-Valuation report-Difference between DVO value and consideration paid for purchase of property was to be assessed as income of purchasers in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. [S. 56(2)(vii)]

Jayshri Propack (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 17 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Shares issued at premium-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to consider the valuation report submitted by the assessee. [S. 56(2)(viib) R.11U, 11UA]

Anant R Gawande. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 58 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Two residential house-One unit co-owned by assessee and wife-Ownership of more than one house-Not absolute owner-Denial of exemption is not valid-Under construction house-Income cannot be assessed as income from house property-Till time of possession condition stipulated in clause (b) of proviso to section 54F(1) was not satisfied-Denial of exemption is not valid. [S. 22, 45]

ACIT v. Mayur Batra. (2023) 198 ITD 333 / 222 TTJ 526(Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-claim of benefit could not be disallowed only on ground that same was not claimed in return-Commissioner (Appeals) have powers to consider claim of assessee which was left half way by Assessing Officer.[S. 139, 251]

ITO v. Vinod Gugnani. (2023) 198 ITD 233 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Invested entire amount of sale consideration towards construction of new house-Delay of 31 days in depositing the amount in capital gains account-Denial of exemption is not justified. [S. 45, 139(1)]

Dr. Dharmista Mehta. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 106 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Purchase or construction-Exemption should be allowed if amount is invested on or before due date of filing of return under section 139(4).[S.45,54(2), 139(1),139(4)]

Dr. Sheela Puttabuddi. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 48/223 TTJ 499 s (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Purchase-Agricultural land which was to be converted into non-agricultural property-Amount paid to builder before filing of return-House is registered beyond prescribed period-Eligible to claim exemption. [S. 45]