2016 (4) TMI 130 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
DCIT, Cir. 2 Surat Versus Shri Mafatlal Nathalal Patel
Addition on account of difference in estimated value of shops and actual receipt - assessee has dissolved firm and distributed shop to partners - Held that - CIT(A) has examined the issue lucidly and that too of all possible angles. The firm was disallowed w.e.f. 1-4-2006. On dissolution of the firm, assets must have been distributed. Unsold stocks represented shops/offices space fallen to the assessee. The moment the firm was dissolved, this stock was converted into capital assets of the partners. The AO could have taken action as per section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act against the firm on it ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 480 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Versus SHRI SHANUBHAI M. PATEL
Addition on account of capital gain on the basis of valuation of asset by DVO - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - Section 50C of the Act is a special provision for full value of consideration in some cases. - What the section provides is that if any land or building or both are transferred at a value less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority shall be considered to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Thus, the cond ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 1052 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Smt. Shyama Prakash Agarwal Versus ITO, Ward-2 (2) Surat.
Addition u/s 50C - Computation of capital gain - difference in sale price in sale deed and valuation by the stamp valuation authorities - Held that - No doubt section 50C contemplates replacement of full value of consideration received as a result of such transfer. But a transfer of capital asset should be either land or building. It does not authorize the AO to replace the full value of the consideration in each and every case, where capital gain is to be computed. This deeming fiction is applicable only when the land or building is being transferred. - Whatever compensation received would be ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 1053 - ITAT MUMBAI
Shri Farid Gulmohamed Versus Income Tax Officer (Internationla Tax) 3 (1) , Mumbai
Invocation of the provisions of section 50C - Held that - We do not find any justification in the orders of the authorities below in invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act and adopting the value of property as determined by the stamp valuation authority, for the purpose of computing the capital gain on transfer of the assessee s leasehold rights in the said foreshore land at Napean Sea Road, Mumbai. - We direct the AO to compute the capital gains on the transfer of the leasehold rights of the aforesaid foreshore land at Napean Sea Road, Mumbai by adopting the value of the property a ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 758 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Versus M/s. B. Arunkumar & Co.
Addition on Long Term Capital Gain on account of sale of share - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - We find that both Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have rendered a finding of fact that the consideration of ₹ 750/- and ₹ 936/- per share received on the sale of the shares by the respondent-assessee was in fact the full consideration which have been disclosed to the revenue. - It is not the case of the revenue that the amount disclosed by the respondent assessee was less than what has been received by them or what had accrued on sale of its shares. ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 505 - ITAT PUNE
Shri Randheer V. Nahar Versus ITO, Ward-3 (1) , Pune
Determination of short term capital gain - Held that - We find the CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not submitted anything on the issue of short term capital loss and accordingly confirmed the order of the AO on the said issue. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that although the balance sheet for the year ending 31-03-2005 and 31-03- 2006 were produced before the CIT(A) and arguments had taken place on different dates, however, the CIT(A) has brushed aside all those details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we res ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 864 - ITAT MUMBAI
Navnita H. Melwani Versus ITO, Ward 12 (3) (3) , Mumbai and Haresh H. Melwani Versus ITO, Ward 12 (1) (1) , Mumbai
Capital gain - transfer of shares - applacability of section 50C - Held that - What in law has transpired is the transfer of shares, and not of land and, accordingly, section 50C will not come into picture. This consideration, which appears to have prevailed with the Revenue authorities, is not valid. - Find no infirmity in the assessee s claim for legal expenses u/s.48(i), and uphold the same, in principle. However, it is not clear if the takeover agreement dated 13.4.2006, evidencing the transaction, and which constitutes the prime evidence, was before the Revenue authorities, whose finding ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 855 - ITAT DELHI
Manjulata Kurela Versus The A.C.I.T, Central Circle - 23, New Delhi
Assessment under Section 153 - addition u/s 50C - Held that - AO has made addition by invoking deeming provision of section 50C of the Act and addition for A.Y 2005-06 has been made on the basis of facts and evidence which was already available with the AO at the time of original assessment proceedings as well as subsequent assessment proceedings which were completed on 26.12.2007 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the AO has not made any addition in the other A.Ys which fall within the block of A.Ys as well as in the A.Y wherein search and seizure operation was co ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 754 - ITAT DELHI
Uma Dutt Paliwal Versus Addl. CIT, Karnal
Disallowance on account of interest - Held that - If the money is utilised in a way that makes commercial sense and helps in running the business of the assessee more efficiently, then it can be said that the interest paid in respect of the borrowed money has been incurred for the purposes of commercial expediency. Moreover, the Ld. AR has demonstrated that as per the Balance sheet, the assessee had a capital of ₹ 2.73 crores and the profit for the year was ₹ 16.94 lacs. These figures, in our opinion, were sufficient to meet the investment requirements as well as the amount given a ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 1063 - ITAT DELHI
Rajshree Steels Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-15 (2) , New Delhi.
Addition u/s 50C - assessee submitted that the plots were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade of the business - Held that - We have perused the provisions of section 50C(1). It is very clear from the section itself that the provisions of section 50C(1) is attracted only in a case of a capital asset and not in the case where the asset is held as stock-in-trade. From the facts in the present case, and the paper book filed, it is very clear that all the properties sold by the assessee during the relevant year under consideration formed part of stock. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 668 - ITAT KOLKATA
M/s. Linde India Limited (formerly known as BOC India Limited) , D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Versus Addl. CIT, Range-12, Kolkata, M/s. Linde India Limited (formerly known as BOC India Limited)
Applicability of TDS provision - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment made on account of offshore supply of equipments - Held that - We hold that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable only in the cases where any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services has been paid or payable to a resident. In the case of assessee company, the payments were made to a non resident German company, the fact which is undisputed on record. Hence, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked in this case. As the ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 77 - ITAT BANGALORE
M/s. Bharathi Dev Anandani Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8 (1) , Bangalore.
Deduction u/s 50C computation - whether the rate prevailing in the year 2005 when the assessee claimed to have entered into agreement for sale or the rate prevailing in the year 2007 when the assessee has finally executed the sale deed and registered are to be adopted as full value consideration u/s 50C - Held that - Once the parties have agreed upon the sale consideration of the property in the year 2005, then it will be immaterial if the final sale deed was executed in the year 2007 when final payment was made to the assessee by the purchaser. It is not the case of the AO that the payment re ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 648 - ITAT DELHI
ITO, Ward 33 (1) , New Delhi Versus Rajeev Goel
Addition u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment - AO relied on the deeming provision of section 50C for drawing an inference that the property in question was transacted at the market value and the consideration received by the seller was based on such market value which was not shown in the sale deed for transfer of this property - Held that - Section 50C creates a legal fiction for taxing capital gains in the hands of the seller and it cannot be extended for taxing the difference between apparent consideration and valuation done by Stamp Authority is undisclosed income in the hands of t ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 638 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Mr Juginder Singh Khurana Versus Income Tax Officer 6 (2) , Lucknow and Vica-Versa
Computation of long term capital gain - sale of immoveable land bearing Khasra No.1583 Ka, Rakba 1.986 Hectare and the other Khasra No.1584 Kha, Rakba 0.101 Hectare, totaling 2.087 Hectare situated at village Aurangabad Khalsa, Tehsil and Zila Lucknow - Held that - The onus is upon the assessee to establish through documents that the impugned land was purchased by the assessee and his wife. The, onus is also upon the assessee to establish that the other land bearing Khasra No.1584 ख for land measuring 0.101 hectare is still owned by them or it was also disputed by some other party as the ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 881 - ITAT JAIPUR
Shri Hardayal Singh Versus The DCIT, Circle, Jaipur
Liability to pay tax on long term capital gains - cancellation document - Transfer - Held that - If there was any cancellation document which has taken place, the original document would have been with the assessee, as the assessee would have been the sole beneficiary of said document . In our view, the alleged cancellation agreement between the assessee and the purchaser, if accepted, is a title document qua the assessee that will nullify the effect of the original sale deed as per the assessee (though this contention of nullifying the effect of registered document is highly disputable and de ....... - .......