S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation Assessing Officer to get valuation done through District Valuation Officer-Matter remanded [ S. 45 ,50C(2) ]
Nafisa Abizar Banatwala v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 59 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation Assessing Officer to get valuation done through District Valuation Officer-Matter remanded [ S. 45 ,50C(2) ]
Nafisa Abizar Banatwala v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 59 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)S.45(5A): Capital gains- Joint development agreement -Area-Sharing agreement — Land owner required to pay tax on capital gains at time of entering into development agreement and giving possession of land to developer for construction — Consideration to landlord would be cost of construction to developer [ S.45 ]
ITO v. Pakki Prabhakar Rao And Others (2020) 78 ITR 52 ( SN) (Vishakha) (Trib)S. 45(3) : Capital gains – Transfer of capital asset to firm –Capital contribution —Amount recorded in books of account of firm deemed to be full value of consideration — Deeming fiction provided in S. 50C cannot be extended to compute full value — One deeming section cannot be extended by importing another deeming section [ S.45, 48 50C]
ACIT v. Amartara P. Ltd. (2020) 78 ITR 46 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)S.45: Capital gains — Long-term capital gains —Allotment letter – – Subsequent letter and premises ownership agreement — Improvement in rights which already created — Date of acquisition of right not date of registration but date of allotment letter — Holding of property more than 36 months — Assessable as long term capital gains – Entitled to Indexation benefit —Entitled to exemption on reinvestment in new flat [ S. 2(42A),54 , 54F ]
Raju Dayal Sahani v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 35 ( SN) ( Mum) (Trib)S. 45 : Capital gains – Long-term capital gains — Transfer of land — Fair market value —As on 1-4 1981 was directed to be adopted .
Catherene Thomas (Smt.) v . ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 18 (SN)( Cochin) (Trib)S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – General remark that payment made in cash due to business exigencies is held to be not acceptable.[ R.6DD ]
Barnala Steel Industries Ltd. v JCIT (2020) 78 ITR 29(SN) (Delhi) (Trib)S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Professional fees-Recipient paying tax on payment made – Disallowance is held to be not justified .
Trans Freight Containers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 5 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Failure to deduct tax on interest paid on loan- Recipient had declared the interest in the return- The assessee is directed to substantiate that recipient has shown the interest in his return. [ S.194A, 201(IA) ]
Barnala Steel Industries Ltd. v JCIT (2020) 78 ITR 29(SN) (Delhi) (Trib)S.37(1): Business expenditure — Defective goods – Addition based on presumptions and suspicions- Held to be not justified – Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) -Power of enhancement- Enhancement of assessment had to be considered in the context of each issue raised in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). [ S.251(2) ]
Shankar Gupta v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 76 (SN) (Jaipur) (Trib)S.37(1): Business expenditure — Real estate development — Selling and administrative costs — Selling expenses – Revenue expenses after setting up of business is held to be allowable although revenue was not yet earned —Accounting Standard 7 .
Pragnya Crest Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 43 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)