S. 56: Income from other sources-Receipt of bonus shares-Provisions of s. 56(2)(vii)(c) are not attracted on receipt of bonus shares.[S.56(2)(vii)(c)]
Deepak Kothari v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 241 / 177 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi) (Trib)S. 56: Income from other sources-Receipt of bonus shares-Provisions of s. 56(2)(vii)(c) are not attracted on receipt of bonus shares.[S.56(2)(vii)(c)]
Deepak Kothari v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 241 / 177 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi) (Trib)S.54F: Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Owing to the Death of the mother of the assessee, she received 25 per cent of the share in the property in New Delhi-Merely because the assessee had the right to receive the rent w.e.f. 11th July, 2015, the position does not change-Absolute ownership was acquired by the assessee only after mutation. The assessee is the 25 per cent owner of the property; he cannot be held to be the absolute owner of the second property-entitled to exemption. [S. 45]
Deepak Kothari v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 241 / 177 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi) Trib)S. 54: Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Co-owners-New residential property jointly purchased by assessee and his wife-Actual contribution towards the purchase of the new house is a relevant factor while determining the eligible exemption-AO is directed to verify the proportion of investment made by the assessee and allow the exemption accordingly-Cost of improvement-The assessee has provided the best available documentary evidence in the form of contractor bills and work details, the claim for indexed cost of improvement is allowed to the assesse. [S. 45, 48]
Dilip Mohandas Devani v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 1098 (Ahd)(Trib)S. 50C: Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-The stamp duty paid on the transaction showed a higher stamp duty valuation-No request was made for referring to DVO-The CIT(A) has rightly applied the provisions of S. 50C by adopting the stamp duty value as the full value of consideration in place of the sale deed value.[S. 45]
Dilip Mohandas Devani v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 1098 (Ahd)(Trib)S. 45: Capital gains-Agreement of sale-Registration-Assessee handed over the land to the buyer and also received the sale consideration in asst. yr. 2008-09-Provisions of IT Act apply on the basis of real income and not based on notional income-No provision for increasing sale consideration by notional interest.[S. 48]
Deepak Kothari v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 241 / 177 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi) Trib)S. 44BB: Mineral oils-Computation-Providing its vessels for transportation to entities engaged in the exploitation/exploration of seabed or subsoil-Section 44BB was not applicable-AO is directed to compute the income of the assessee in terms of art. 21(4) of the India-Norway DTAA-DTAA-India-Norway [S.90, Art, 21]
Sanco Holding AS v. DCIT (IT) (2025) 237 TTJ 936 / 178 taxmann.com 673 (Dehradun) (Trib)S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-Payment of TDS inadvertently misreported under cl. 26(B)(b) of From No. 3CD-the matter is restored to the jurisdictional AO with a direction to verify the correctness of the assessee’s claim and re-adjudicate the allowability of payments under S 43B in accordance with law.
Darshit Gunantbhai Shah v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 359 / 177 taxmann.com 36 ((Ahd)(Trib)S. 41(1): Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Creditors outstanding for a long time-The amount due to the creditors is not chargeable to tax.
Kumar Urban Development (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 881 (Pune)(Trib)S. 40A(3): Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Alleged non-genuine purchases-lack of proper enquiry-Matter is restored to the AO with a direction to conduct a de novo assessment on this issue after carrying out proper and comprehensive enquiry regarding various aspects.[S.133(6)]
Shital Vipulkumar Dholakia v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 1045 (Ahd)(Trib)S.40(a)(iib): Amounts not deductible-Business expenditure-Collection and payment of privilege fee, special privilege fee, etc. to the State Government-Disallowance was deleted. [S.37(1), A.P. (Regulation of Trade in Indian made Foreign Liquor, Foreign Liquor) Act, 1993, S 4]
Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 716 / 175 taxmann.com 567 (Hyd)(Trib)