Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Kumar Babbar, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 30 January, 2013

Ito, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 13 May, 2016

construction of a new residential house at Saroornagar. It is also not disputed that the sale consideration under section 50C is to be adopted as the sale consideration for computation of the capital gain. The dispute only is whether the actual sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed or the deemed sale consideration under section 50C is to be adopted for allowing the deduction under section 54F of the I.T. Act. We find that in the case of Raj Babbar vs. ITO (cited supra), the Tribunal at Mumbai has considered this issue at length and at para 11 to 13 held as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aruna D Sawant , Mumbai vs Ito 16(2)(4), Mumbai on 30 November, 2016

In our considered opinion, though the Tribunal in the case of RajBabbar (supra), was dealing with an exemption under section 54F of the Act in a case where section 50C of the Act was applied for computing the capital gains, but the 5 ITA No.7191/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year 2005-06) ratio therein is fully applicable in the present case also, which is in relation to assessee's claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act. Inasmuch as, in the present case, also the capital gains have been determined in terms of section 50C of the Act. Furthermore, it is also not in dispute that if capital gains is computed by adopting the actual sale consideration received by the assessee, the cost of the new asset as determined by CIT(A) is in excess of the capital gain so determined and, thus capital gain becomes exempt under section 54 of the Act. Under these circumstances, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. Thus, the assessee succeeds in this appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1