Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Vijaysinh R. Rathod And Ors. vs Ito on 27 October, 2006

Zaverbhai R.Rathod L/H Of Late Ramubhai ... vs Department Of Income Tax

7. We have perused the orders of authorities below and arguments from both the sides and considered the paper book submitted by the assessee. The ld. Collector, Surat, has revised the rate of land by his order dated 20.01.2006 on direction of the Hon'ble High Court @ Rs. 1,061/- per sq. mtr. which came at Rs. 48,09,513/-. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that on page no.7 of the order that sale consideration of the land as per Section 50C is Rs. 48,09,513/- and not Rs.90,66,000/- as considered by the ITO. In this case, the cost to previous owner was not ascertainable. As per Section 55(3) of the IT Act, market value of the land when acquired by the previous owner would be the cost to the previous owner and the appellant was entitled to substitute the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as he had inherited the same prior to that date. The ld. CIT(A) also relied upon ITAT, Ahmedabad, decision in case of Vijaysinh R. Rathod & Ors. Vs. ITO (2007) 107 TTJ (Ahd) (SB) 593. Therefore, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Udai Raj Singh, Agra vs Department Of Income Tax

The scheme of taxation of capital gain to be understood by applying the provisions of section 2(42A), 2(47), 47(ii), 48, 49(1)(ii) & 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, as per the provisions of these sections, where an assessee sells and inherits capital asset, the capital gain is computed with reference to the period of holding and cost of acquisition incurred by previous owner. If it is so considered, the cost inflation index has also to be considered with reference to the previous owner. Similar view has been taken by Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Mina Deogun vs. ITO, 117 TTJ 121 (Cal) and in the case of Vijaysinh R. Rathore vs. ITO (Ahd.) Special Bench, 106 ITD 153. No contrary decision was brought to our knowledge by the ld. D.R. We are, therefore, of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly held that the cost of indexation has to be applied to the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 while computing the capital gain under section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hiraben Govindbhai Patel,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 7 March, 2013

iii) 106 ITD 153 (Ahd.) Vijaysinh R Rathod Vs ITO, Vapi 2.3 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the judgements cited by both the sides. We find that the mode of purchasing the land in question by the assessee is indicated at page 3 of the sale deed and the same is reproduced in the letter of the assessee dated 19.06.2009 3 I.T.(SS).No. 137 /Ahd/2009 C.O. No.282/Ahd/2009 to CIT(A) copy of which is available on pages 1-16 of the paper book and the relevant portion is available on page 5 of the paper book. The relevant portion is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Seetha S Shetty, Mumbai vs Assessee on 11 September, 2015

5. However the above explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the assessing officer. According to him, firstly, the case laws relied upon by the assessee pertain to assessment years much prior to A.Y. 1995-96, however, subsequently an amendment has been brought in section 55(2) of the Act which defines "Cost of Acquisition". Before A.Y. 1995-96, the Courts had held that capital gain tax was not chargeable where the cost of acquisition was nil or not ascertainable. The facts of these case laws were completely different from the facts of the assessee, where the cost of acquisition was although nil but it was fully ascertainable. He relied in this respect upon the decision of the Ahmedabad Special Bench in the case of Vijay Singh R. Rathod & Others Vs. ITO, 106 ITD 153 (Ahd) (Special Bench). The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had been permitted to sell land to a Developer as owner and accordingly the sale deed had been 4 ITA 807/M/13 executed. The possession of the land held by the assessee at the time of sale on 24.8.2005 to M/s. Hekunt Real Estate P. Ltd. was the occupancy right granted to the assesses by the consent decree of Bombay City Civil Court on 13.7.1999 which became the ownership right after her name was entered as owner in the land records. The occupancy rights in these lands, therefore, amount to capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14), the sale whereof was liable to be taxed as capital gain under section 45.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1