This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 54B : Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes – Investment in the name of wife was held to be entitle to exemption .The word used are the assessee has to invest , it is not specified that it is to be in the name of assessee. Expenditure on bore wells and stamp duty to be taken in to consideration while considering the exemption [ S. 45, 263 ]

Laxmi Narayan v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 117/( 2019) 306 CTR 361 (Raj) (HC) Shravan lal Meena L/H of Late Bhagwanta Meena v.ITO (2018) 402 ITR 117/( 2019) 306 CTR 361 (Raj) (HC) Mahadev Balaji v .ITO (2018) 402 ITR 117 /( 2019) 306 CTR 361(Raj) (HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Investment in residential house outside India was held eligible for exemption ( Prior to amendment with effect from 1-4-2015 by Finance (No. 2) ACT, 2014). [ S. 45, 54F ]

Dipankar Mohan Ghosh, In Re (2018) 401 ITR 129/ 301 CTR 42 /163 DTR 21 (AAR)

S. 54: Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence –Cost included furniture and fixtures –Exemption cannot be denied only on the ground that no claim was made in the return , if he is otherwise entitle to it .[ S.45 ]

Rajat B. Mehta v. ITO ( 2018)169 ITD 178/ 163 DTR 49/ 192 TTJ 307/ 62 ITR 334( Ahd)(Trib)

S. 54: Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – If entire consideration was paid with in three years the assessee is entitle to exemption [ S.45, 54F ]

Seema Sabharwal v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 319/ 193 TTJ 128/ 163 DTR 253 (Chd)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Distress sale -Transactions between Government entities, provision cannot be applied . [ S. 45 ]

ITO v. Southern Steel Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 126 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation -Assessee was not a real owner of property and he transferred same on representative basis, provisions of section 50C could not be applied to assessee’s case in order to compute capital gain arising from sale of said property [ S.45 ]

JCIT v. D. Sesha Giri Rao. (2018) 168 ITD 287 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 50B : Capital gains – Slump sale –Transfer of individual assets to sister concern without transfer of undertaking or business activity as a whole cannot be considered as slump sale [ S. 2(19AA), 2(42C ) ]

L & T Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 168 ITD 52 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 47(iv) : Capital gains – Transaction not regarded as transfer – Subsidiary – A subsidiary of a subsidiary (step-down subsidiary) is also a subsidiary of the parent. Consequently, transfers between the holding company and the step-down subsidiary are not “transfers” which can give rise to capital gains or loss. [ S.45 , 48, Companies Act , S. 4(1)( c ), 108 ]

Emami Infrastructure Ltd. v. ITO (Kol)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 45(4) : Capital gains – Distribution of capital asset – Revaluation of assets on retirement – On retirement the accounts are settled of retiring partners without distribution of capital assets , provisions of S. 45(4) cannot be invoked.Capital gains cannot be levied on the firm [ S. 2(47),45 ]

Mahul Construction Corporation. v. ITO (2018) 168 ITD 120/ 164 DTR 217/ 193 TTJ 8 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 45:Capital gains — Transfer — Development agreement- Capital gains is taxable in the year in which possession was handed over and not in the year in which the project was completed [ S. 54, 54F ]

ITO v. Dr. Arvind Goverdhan. (2018) 61 ITR 159 (Bang) (Trib) ITO v. Monica Goverdhan ( Mrs) (2018) 61 ITR 159 (Bang) (Trib) ITO v Margrift Goverdhan( Mrs) (2018) 61 ITR 159 (Bang) (Trib) ITO v. Anitha Goverdhn ( Mrs) (2018) 61 ITR 159 (Bang) (Trib)