Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ITO v. Ajaib Singh. (2025) 213 ITD 613 (Amritsar) (Trib.)

S. 54B: Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-land sold was used for agricultural activities for the last two years immediately preceding the date of transfer-Sale proceeds were also utilised for purchase of another land, which was again used for agricultural purposes-Exemption cannot be denied on the ground that after sale land was declared as non-agricultural by Stamp Duty Officer.[S. 45]

DCIT v. Tirupati Niryat (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 513 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 50C: Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Third proviso-Difference between value determined by DVO and consideration declared by assessee was less than 5 per cent of sale consideration-Would be entitled to the safe harbour rule of 5 per cent as per third proviso to section 50C.[S. 45]

Geotech Foundation and Constructions. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 565 (Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Land-Compulsorily acquired-Guarantor-Overdraft facility-Compensation was first credited to assessee’s account and then transferred to sister concern’s bank account to discharge its overdraft-Application of income and not diversion by overriding title-Capital gains were taxable in assessee’s hands.[S. 4]

Hemantkumar Gajanan Lad. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 366 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Transfer of rights in plot of land-Following the order of the brother, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. [S. 147, 148]

Sangita Ben Mardia. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 210 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Sale of shares-Accommodation entries-Sale through registered stockbroker-Copies of contract note filed-Genuine transaction-Denial of exemption was not justified-Allowed exemption-Addition was deleted.[S. 10(38, 69A, 147, 148]

Dharampal Saghera v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 69 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Family settlement-Capital asset –Transfer-Gift-Relinquishment of possession-Civil suit-Compensation received assessable as capital gains and not income from other sources.[S. 2(14), 2(47), 54, 54EC, 56(2)]

Lakshmanram Bheemaji Purohit v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 507 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 44AD : Presumptive basis-Bogus purchases-Not under any obligation to explain individual entry of purchases-Gross receipts remained undisputed-Additions deleted.[S. 69C]

Mohit Sukhija v. NFA (2025) 213 ITD 251 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 44AD: Presumptive basis-Cash credits-Unexplained investment-Demonetization-Cash deposits in books-Source of cash deposits explained-VAT return-Declared sales-Sales not doubted-The additions cannot be made as cash credits or unexplained investment.[S. 68, 69]

Jatin Arora. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 173 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 44AD : Presumptive basis-Cash credits-Bank deposits-Treated as turnover-Assessing Officer had not shown that such deposits were different from business receipts; addition as sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) was deleted.[S.68]

Ganga Reddy Gidde. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 692 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-VAT payment-Fake challan-No actual payment-Addition was justified-Deduction-LIC premium-Failure to produce evidence-Disallowance was affirmed. [S.80C]