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...
The Tribunal invalidated an assessment passed without awaiting the Departmental Valuation Officer report, holding that provisional assessments violate section 50C(2) and 143(3). The rectification under section 154 based on later material was also impermissible.
The Tribunal condoned an 868-day delay arising from wrong professional advice and Covid-related extensions, holding that the assessee showed sufficient cause. It ruled that the 50C addition under Section 153A lacked incriminating material and directed a full de-novo review.
The Delhi ITAT held that reopening an assessment based solely on audit objections, without fresh material, is invalid. The tribunal emphasized that reassessment cannot be used for a mere change of opinion
The Tribunal held that reopening based on Section 50C was unsustainable because the provision applies only to sellers, not purchasers of property. With the very foundation of reassessment failing, the addition based on circle-rate difference was deleted. The ruling underscores that incorrect legal assumptions cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
The Tribunal held that failure to file a return under section 139 or within the 148-notice deadline triggers Explanation 3, deeming concealment regardless of later tax payment. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that AO must recompute capital gains considering purchase cost, indexation, and stamp duty, instead of merely adding the section 50C deemed value difference.
Tribunal directed AO to maintain uniformity among co-owners in computing capital gains. While circle rate under section 50C applies, the cost of acquisition should follow the previously accepted benchmark of ₹50,000 per bigha.
The Tribunal held that additions made by treating real estate receipts as capital gains required fresh verification. The case was remanded as the earlier order failed to examine the assessee’s claim of business income under section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land in a spouse’s name qualifies for deduction under Section 54B, following Rajasthan High Court precedent.
The Tribunal ruled that a Section 148 notice issued after six years from AY 2013–14 was invalid, quashing the reassessment and additions under Section 54F.
