Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 vs Manjula J. Shah(Dead) Through Lrs on 18 September, 2018
3.5. Respectfully following the said decision, we hold that assessee would be entitled
for indexed cost of acquisition benefit from F.Y.1981-82 on the cost of Rs.33,82,900/-.
Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 78 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Smt. Cheryl Maria Fernandes, Mumbai vs Ito (It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai on 15 January, 2021
In this regard, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the
coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs ITO, (2021) 187
ITD 738 (Mumbai-Trib.). We find that in the aforesaid decision coordinate
bench of the Tribunal held that amendment made in the scheme of section
50C(1), by inserting third proviso thereto and by enhancing tolerance band for
variations between stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation
from 5 percent to 10 percent are effective from the date on which section 50C,
itself was introduced, i.e 1-4-2003. Therefore, respectfully following the
aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we direct the
Assessing Officer to compute the capital gains after granting the benefit of the
3rd proviso to section 50C of the Act to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 4
is allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1) , ... vs Sohrab Fali Mehta, Mumbai on 15 March, 2023
6. With the assistance of both parties, we find that in the case of the
brother of the assessee, i.e. Mr. Sohrab Fali Mehta, being the joint holder of
the undivided right, title, and interest in 30% of the immovable property,
exactly similar computation of long-term capital gains was offered and the
Revenue also made similar additions/disallowances. We further find that on
similar issues, as raised in the present appeal, the coordinate bench of the
Tribunal in ITO vs Sohrab Fali Mehta, in ITA No. 55/Mum./2013, vide order
dated 15/03/2023, for the assessment year 2016-17 partly allowed the appeal
filed by the Revenue, by observing as under:-
1