S.54F: Capital gains-Investment in a residential house–Purchases–Duplex-Single deed-Entitled to exemption. [S. 45]
Ratan Mahendra Jain. (Mrs) v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 58//124 ITR 624 (Mum) (Trib.)S.54F: Capital gains-Investment in a residential house–Purchases–Duplex-Single deed-Entitled to exemption. [S. 45]
Ratan Mahendra Jain. (Mrs) v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 58//124 ITR 624 (Mum) (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]
ITO v. Ajaib Singh. (2025) 213 ITD 613 (Amritsar) (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]
DCIT v. Tirupati Niryat (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 513 (Kol) (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]
Geotech Foundation and Constructions. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 565 (Cochin) (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]
Hemantkumar Gajanan Lad. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 366 (Pune) (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]
Sangita Ben Mardia. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 210 (Mum) (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)]
Dharampal Saghera v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 69/236 TTJ 92 (Chd.)(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]
Lakshmanram Bheemaji Purohit v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 507 (Bang) (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]
Mohit Sukhija v. NFA (2025) 213 ITD 251 (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]
Jatin Arora. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 173 (Delhi) (Trib.)