Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, vs M/S. Suzlon Energy Ltd.,, Pune on 27 July, 2018

5. The sole dispute between the parties is admittedly regarding the cost of acquisition of the land/capital asset. The assessee has claimed the same at Rs. "nil" all along which stands rejected in lower proceedings. We find in this factual backdrop that section 49(1)(i) to (iv) prescribing cost; with reference to certain modes of acquisition wherein if it is found that the capital asset in issue has been acquired under the specified mode; gift herein is to be taken for which the previous owner had acquired the same for valuation consideration followed by Explanation thereto inserted by Finance Act, 1965 w.e.f. 1-4-1965. Mr. Walimbe fails to rebut the clinching fact that the learned lower authorities could not find the actual cost of acquisition paid by way of valuable consideration. We therefore, find merit in the assessee's case in the light of CIT Vs. Sambhaji Nagar Co-op. Hsg.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Markapakula Agamma on 20 January, 1987

Society Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 325 as well as CIT Vs Markapakula Agamma (1987) 165 ITR 386 (AP) and direct the Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation after adopting the cost of the asset's acquisition in issue as "NIL". Once the assessee succeeds in his first and foremost substantive ground, all other grounds have become infructuous in light of his statement in para 3 hereinabove. Ordered accordingly.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 22 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1