Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Saggar Parimmal. ITO (Mum)(Trib) (UR) Ketan Kumar Sagar v. ITO (Mum) (Trib) (UR)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Special provision for computation of full value consideration (Amendment)-difference between sale consideration and stamp duty-Stamp Duty Value of the Property purchase and Purchase consideration is less than the tolerance band of 10%-Provisions of Section 56(2)(x)-The assessee is entitled to the benefit of the tolerance limit of 6.56%.. [S. 56(2)(x)]

Gupta Enterprises v. ACIT (Vishaka Pattanam) (Trib)(UR)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Stamp duty value of the property-Date of agreement-The AO is directed to consider the stamp duty value of the property, as on the date of agreement i.e. 03.06.2002/19.06.2002, as mentioned in the sale deed itself and recompute the capital gain/tax liability accordingly.[S.45]

SKF India v. DCIT. [2025] 121 ITR 307/ 210 ITD 1 (SB)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 50 :Capital gains-Depreciable assets-Block of assets-Rate of tax-Deeming fiction is to be confined only to section 50 and it could not convert short term capital asset into long term capital asset and vice versa for other purpose of Act-Rate of tax would be in terms of section 112 at rate of 20 percent and not 30 percent.[S. 2(29AA) 2(29B), 2(42A), 45, 48,49, 112(1)]

Dy.CIT v. Samagra Wealthmax (P) Ltd.(2025) 233 TTJ 651 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 47(vi) : Transaction not regarded as transfer-Capital gains-Amalgamation-When transaction specifically falls under the said section-Addition under section 56(2)(x) is not valid. [S. 28(iv), 56(2)(x)]

ACIT v. Emerging Markets Ltd. (2025) 210 ITD 494 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Capital loss-Assessee, a Foreign Portfolio Investor incorporated in United Kingdom-entered into Forward Foreign Exchange contracts (FCC) with a bank to hedge amounts invested in Indian securities-loss incurred on rollover/cancellation of FCC was in nature of short-term capital loss eligible for carry forward under head ‘capital gains’. [S.74]

Mashreq Bank PSC v Dy.CIT (IT) (2025) 233 TTJ 881 / 211 ITD 511 (SB)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 44C: Non-residents-Head office expenditure-Double taxation relief-Article 7(3) of the DTAA between India and UAE-Asessee claimed deduction u/s. 44C-AO allowed only 5% of the adjusted total income as deduction-Held, Art. 7(3) cannot be applied retrospectively-Held, deduction allowed without imposing restriction u/s. 44C-Expenditure incurred outside India exclusively for operations of Indian branches would not fall within ambit of section 44C hence allowable in full-DTAA-India-Dubai [S. 90,Art.7(3), 25(1)]

Arihant Associates v. ACIT (2025) 210 ITD 149 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S.43CA: Transfer of assets-other than capital assets-Full value of consideration-stock in trade-Agreement value-Stamp valuation-Date of agreement fixing value of consideration and date of registration of such transfer not same-Stamp duty value as on date of agreement for sale should be considered as full value of consideration for purpose of computing profits and gains from transfer of flat-Addition is deleted. [S. 45]

Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd v. DCIT [2025] 121 ITR 288 /172 taxmann.com 346 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 43B: Interest tax liability for AYs:1993-94 to 1997-98 arose to assessee during relevant assessment year 2018-19 by way of order giving effect to order of High Court-liability was discharged by assessee during relevant year allowable as business expenditure.

Munish Arora v. ACIT [2025] 210 ITD 408 (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Business expediency-If the payment is necessary for business operations and is not made with fraudulent intent, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) may not be required, even if the payment exceeds the prescribed limit.

ACIT v. Vardha Infra Ltd. (2025) 233 TTJ 505 (Jodhpur)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Books of Accounts rejected-Separate addition under 40(a)(ia) not valid. Disputed income under litigation-Shown as other income-Cannot be included in turnover when books are rejected-Income does not accrue until litigation is finally terminated, especially if liability is not admitted by the other party. [S. 4, 5, 144 145]