{"id":59240,"date":"2026-04-07T11:13:34","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T05:43:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/t-r-balasubramanium-v-acit-2025-305-taxman-119-madhc\/"},"modified":"2026-04-07T11:13:34","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T05:43:34","slug":"t-r-balasubramanium-v-acit-2025-305-taxman-119-madhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/t-r-balasubramanium-v-acit-2025-305-taxman-119-madhc\/","title":{"rendered":"T.R.Balasubramanium v. ACIT (2025) 305 Taxman 119 (Mad)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee received immovable property upon liquidation of company in proportion to its shareholding. Assessee computed capital gains as per section 55(2)(b)(iii) by taking fair market value of asset on date of distribution as cost of acquisition. \u00a0Assessing Officer held that section 49(1)(iii)(c) applied and cost of acquisition would be that of company (previous owner). \u00a0Tribunal accepted assessee\u2019s method of computation but still allowed revenue&#8217;s appeal following coordinate bench decisions in other related cases. On appeal the Court held that \u00a0both section 49(1)(iii)(c) and section 55(2)(b)(iii) would stand attracted as there were two transactions of transfer of shares, firstly, by way of extinguishment right therein and in consideration of which assessee received asset from company and secondly, by transfer of asset received on liquidation and in consideration of which assessee received actual money. On facts the assessee had not postponed taxability of capital gains but offered it for tax in same year in which gains had accrued, therefore, methodology adopted by assessee would be proper methodology for computation of cost of acquisition. Order of Tribunal set aside.\u00a0 (AY. 1991-92)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 49 : Capital gains-Previous owner-Cost of acquisition-Immovable property upon liquidation of company in proportion to its shareholding-[S. 45,46(2),  49(iii)(c), 55(2)(b)] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fpu","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59240"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59240\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59241,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59240\/revisions\/59241"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}