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 – 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.orgS. 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)S. 45: Capital gains- Cash credits- Penny stocks – When the identity and genuineness of transaction is established merely because , the investigation department has alleged that there is a modus operandi of bogus Long term capital gains scheme is not relevant if the same is not substantiated [ S.10(38), 68 ]
Meenu Goel v. ITO( SMC) (Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.orgS. 45: Capital gains-Cash credits- Share capital-Shares were issued at premium- Identity and PAN was furnished addition cannot be made as undisclosed income . [ S. 68, 133(6) ]
DCIT v. Alcon Biosciences P. Ltd( 2018) 164 DTR 193/193 TTJ 1 (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.orgS. 45: Capital gains- Set off of capital loss-Sham transaction”/ “Colourable device”- Sale of shares to son cannot be held to held to be colourable device if the transaction is with in the four corners of law and valid
Madhu Sarda v. ITO (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.orgS. 45: Capital gains -Index cost -Family arrangement- Family settlements entered into bona fide to maintain peace and harmony in the family are valid and binding on the authorities- Consideration received as part of family arrangement cannot be assessed as income from other sources [ S. 48, 49 ,54 ,56 ]
Kunal R. Gupta v. ITO ( SMC) (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org