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 : Section 50C: For property sales, if the sale price is lower than the value assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority, that value is co...
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 : The case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences with...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that where registration is delayed, the stamp duty value on the agreement date must be considered. The ruling ap...
Income Tax : The dispute involved incorrect invocation of valuation provisions by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that using Section 142A instead of...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that capital gains were computed without considering the DVO valuation report. It held that ignoring such evide...
Income Tax : ITAT held that vacant unsold flats attract tax on notional rent under house property. The key takeaway is that ownership triggers ...
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 examined whether cost of improvement can be denied solely due to cash payments. It ruled that genuine documentary evidence is sufficient, reducing the section 50C addition substantially.
The Tribunal held that land cost must be allocated based on saleable/built-up area under the JDA, not total land area. It directed adoption of a higher per-sq-ft land cost while recomputing capital gains.
The Tribunal held that when stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer must refer the matter to the DVO. Fair market value determination is mandatory before sustaining a Section 50C addition.
The Tribunal held that assets received under a compliant scheme of demerger cannot be taxed under Section 56(2)(x). Transactions covered by Section 47 exemptions fall outside the scope of deemed income.
The Tribunal held that when the Assessing Officer disagrees with FMV supported by a registered valuer, a reference to the DVO is mandatory. Reliance solely on stamp duty rates was found improper, and the matter was remanded for fresh valuation.
The issue was whether stamp duty value as on registration could override actual consideration received earlier. The Tribunal held that section 50C is a machinery provision and cannot be applied mechanically to post-transfer market increases.
The lower authorities confirmed an addition without considering permissible valuation variation. The Tribunal held that ignoring the 10% tolerance under section 50C renders the addition invalid.
The Tribunal considered whether disallowance under section 14A was justified merely because exempt income was earned. It ruled that without corresponding investments in the assessee’s books, section 14A cannot be invoked.
It was ruled that substituting sale consideration with stamp duty value during CPC processing is impermissible. Such action deprives taxpayers of the statutory right to seek DVO valuation.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) could not be applied once the assessee qualified as a company in which the public are substantially interested. The ruling clarifies that the charging provision itself fails where statutory exclusion applies.
