Income Tax : The law permits taxpayers to adopt the stamp duty value on the agreement date instead of the registration date where prescribed co...
Income Tax : The article explains how violating the twin conditions under Section 50C(2) can block valuation relief and trigger taxation on hig...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that capital gains from land gifted to spouse are taxable in the husband’s hands under Section 64(1)(iv), no...
Income Tax : Learn how Section 50C impacts genuine property sales. Explore case laws, strategies, and defenses to handle unfair tax additions d...
Income Tax : Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society has made a Representation on 'Suggestions for Amendments in the Income Tax Act', on 24th May...
Income Tax : In relation to computing capital gains tax liability on transfer of land or building, amendment made via the Finance Act, 2016 giv...
Income Tax : Rationalisation Of Section 50c To Provide Relief Where Sale Consideration Fixed Under Agreement To Sell- Section 50C makes a spec...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that purchase of land outside the prescribed period does not automatically disqualify exemption on construction of a...
Income Tax : The Lucknow ITAT held that reassessment proceedings cannot survive where the reasons recorded contain incorrect facts and lack pro...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that a land sale completed before 01.07.2012 could not be subjected to a DVO reference under the amended Section...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the Assessing Officer could not refer property valuation to the DVO when the assessee relie...
Income Tax : The Court held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A where the assessee...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
ITAT held that Section 50C proviso is retrospective, allowing stamp duty value as on the agreement date where consideration was fixed earlier, significantly reducing LTCG exposure.
The issue was whether capital gains could be computed under section 50C without referring valuation to the DVO despite the assessee’s objection. The ITAT held that denial of a DVO reference violates statutory rights and remanded the matter for fresh valuation.
The ITAT held that capital gains under Section 50C cannot be mechanically applied where a sale deed is alleged to be an erroneous document and no real transfer occurred. The case was remanded to verify whether the transaction was actually a gift with no consideration or possession transfer.
Delhi ITAT held that a bank’s valuation report obtained post-search is not incriminating material, restricting unexplained investment addition to a reasonable estimate.
The ITAT held that even a small part payment through banking channels before or on the agreement date is sufficient to invoke the provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Substantial payment or possession is not a statutory requirement.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that reassessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte without examining key issues on transfer, valuation, and cost, directing a fresh assessment with opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer after finding that important objections on land classification and cost of acquisition were not verified. A fresh decision must be made after proper examination.
ITAT ruled that a Section 50C addition cannot stand without a DVO reference where market value is disputed. Matter remanded for fresh valuation and reconsideration.
The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disallowances were quashed due to procedural and jurisdictional lapses.
The Tribunal condoned a 28-day delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The assessee had failed to comply with notices and did not provide evidence for deductions. All additions made by the Assessing Officer, including capital gains and salary income, were upheld.
