Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Vishnukumar Gokalchand Gupta. v. ACIT (2025) 215 ITD 453 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 48: Capital gains-Mode of Computation-Cost of improvement-Previous owner-Cost of acquisition-cost of construction and interiors-Additional evidence-Matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. [S.49(1)]

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 374 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 48: Capital gains-Mode of Computation-Reference to valuation officer (FMV)-FMV of property as on 1-4-1981-Valuation report prepared by a Government-approved registered valuer-Matter was to be remanded back to file of Assessing Officer with a direction to refer valuation of property as on 1-4-1981 to DVO as per specific request of assessee, and thereafter, re-compute long-term capital gain-Cost of improvement expenses-Matter remanded for fresh examination-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Matter concerning correct sale consideration required de novo consideration and was to be restored to Assessing Officer.[S. 45, 50C, 55A, 131, 133(6), 154]

Piyush M. Dobariya v. ITO (2025) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1075 /127 ITR 246/234 TTJ 42 (Ahd)(Trib) Ajay Bharwad v.. ITO (2025) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1075 /127 ITR 246/234 TTJ 42 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 45: Capital gains-Capital asset-Sale of immovable property-Name of lender-Agency Transaction-Ownership established in the registered documents-Addition is affirmed. [S.2(14), 44AD]

ACIT Circle-5(1) v.Lakshmi Technosolutions (P) Ltd (2025) 215 ITD 333 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Transfer-Joint development agreement (JDA-Developer was allowed to enter into property only for development work, and nothing therein shall be construed as parting with possession of the scheduled property by the owner-original title deed of land remained with the assessee-JDA was not an agreement to sell so as to invoke provisions of section 53A and consequently deemed transfer in terms of section 2(47)(v)-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition was affirmed. [S. 2(47)(v), 45, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.53A]

Maimoon Fashion Accessories (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 241 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Transfer-Year of taxability-Handed over possession-Oral agreement-Full consideration-Registered conveyance deed was executed later-Capital gains could not be taxed in the subsequent year when the deed was registered.[S. 2(47), 50C.]

Basavaraju Shivakumar Holavanahalli. v. ACIT (2025) 215 ITD 316 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Sale of property-Commercial building-Capital asset-Intention to let out-Constructed and sold over six years-Assessable as capital gains and not as business income-Exemption under section 54EC was allowable.[. S.2(14), 28(i), 54EC]

Om Shriniwas Developers v. ITO [2025] 177 taxmann.com 610 (SMC) (Pune)(Trib.)

S.43CA: Transfer of assets-other than capital assets-Full value of consideration-stock in trade-Agreement value-Stamp valuation Difference between SDV and agreement value was less than 5 per cent-Addition is deleted-Change of opinion-Reopening is not justified.[S.50C 147, 148]

DCIT v. Amardeep Constructions. (2025) 215 ITD 322 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.43CA: Transfer of assets-other than capital assets-Full value of consideration-stock in trade-Agreement value-Stamp valuation-Tolerance limit of 10 per cent introduced by Finance Act, 2020 to section 43CA is curative in nature and, therefore, applicable retrospectively.[S.50C]

DCIT v. Gaurav Investments. (2025) 215 ITD 124 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.43CA: Transfer of assets-other than capital assets-Full value of consideration-stock in trade-Agreement value-Stamp valuation-Allowing 10 per cent tolerance band is curative and applies retrospectively-No addition was warranted in case of assessee, where difference between DVO value and sale consideration was within permissible limit for assessment year 2018-19.[S.50C]

Magnaquest Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 146 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-Liabilities disallowed in earlier year-Paid during year-Allowable on furnishing payment evidence, while addition for balance amount without supporting evidence was to be sustained.