Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.33 seconds)Section 54E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 112 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tata Communication Ltd. (Formerly ... vs Addl.C.I.T.Rg.1(3), Mumbai on 23 February, 2022
10. The other decisions relied upon by ld. Sr. Counsel express identical view. Since, the
decision of A.O. in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the applicable tax rate on
the capital gain is in conformity with the judicial precedents referred to above, we do not
find any error in decision making process of A.O. Thus, we are of the view that the exercise
of power u/s. 263 of the Act in the present case is invalid. Accordingly, we quash the order
passed u/s. 263 of the Act while restoring the assessment order. Since, we have decided the
appeal on merits, the other issues raised in the appeal are kept open.
Section 74 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. on 7 March, 2005
43. Ergo, this precise issue decided by the tribunal has been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court following its earlier judgment of CIT vs. Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which in turn
has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dempo Company Ltd
reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.com 15 (SC) which we have also analysed in the earlier part of the
order. Hence the issue, that the rate of tax of 20% as prescribed u/s 112 of the Act is applicable on
the transfer of an asset forming part of block of asset (which was held for more than 36 months)
which is deem to be taxed as short term capital gain u/s 50, has been approved by the Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court.