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 Mumbai held that consideration from a redevelopment agreement is taxable in hands of individual members, not co-operative housing society. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹4.97 crore addition, confirming that society acted merely as a representative.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that first proviso to Section 50C(1) is curative and retrospective, applying from A.Y. 2003-04. This allows taxpayer to compute capital gains based on stamp duty value prevailing on earlier MOU date (agreement date) instead of later, higher registration value, since part consideration was paid before registration.
The issue was whether, for Section 50C purposes, the stamp duty value should be taken on the date of the agreement (MOU) or the date of registration. The Karnataka High Court ruled the date of the agreement must be adopted when part of the consideration was paid via banking channel. Key Takeaway: The second proviso to Section 50C(1) is mandatory and allows the use of the lower stamp value prevailing on the agreement date if banking payment is made before registration.
ITAT allowed taxpayer’s appeal, holding AO erred by applying Section 50C to cash compensation received for extinguishment of a right to receive flats instead of an actual transfer of immovable property. The order directs deletion of confirmed LTCG addition of Rs. 80.32 lakhs.
ITAT Chennai held that when sales are accepted and supported by records, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers were untraceable. Addition restricted to 12.5% as profit element.
Addition to the differential margin between the Gross Profit (GP) declared by the assessee and the benchmark rate of 10% adopted as the industry average for rice trading was restricted affirming that a full disallowance of such purchases was not justified when the corresponding sales were accepted by the Revenue authorities.
ITAT ruled that 5% tolerance for difference in stamp duty value and sale consideration applies retrospectively. This allowed assessee’s appeal against an addition under Section 56(2)(x).
The ITAT Delhi confirmed the addition of Rs.25.35 lakh as unexplained investment for a house purchase under Section 69, ruling that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of loans allegedly received from his mother and sister. The lenders lacked sufficient bank balances, and documentation was incomplete.
ITAT Delhi ruled that Section 50C, which allows revaluing property based on circle rates, applies only to the seller in a transfer, not the buyer in a slump sale governed by Section 50B. The Tribunal held that goodwill is depreciable, but its value must be verified by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).
The ITAT granted complete relief, holding that the date of allotment of the new industrial plot, not the date of registration, is the relevant date of purchase for the Section 54G capital gains exemption. Furthermore, the court confirmed that the transfer of industrial property from Delhi (Urban) to Ghaziabad (Non-Urban) qualified for the full shifting exemption.
