1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal recalculates acquisition cost, rejects section 50C, grants marginal relief</h1> The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing the assessing authority to recalculate the acquisition cost by including the initial amount of ... - Issues involved: Determination of cost of acquisition for calculating short term capital gains u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Summary:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI at Chennai for the assessment year 2007-08. The issue revolved around the cost of acquisition of a house property sold by the assessee, which was initially adopted at &8377; 49,82,300/- but later disputed by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on section 50C(1) to determine the stamp duty value as the purchase price, directing the assessing authority to treat &8377; 49,82,300/- as the cost of acquisition. The Revenue contested this decision before the Tribunal.During the hearing, the respondent-assessee did not appear, and the Revenue argued that section 50C provides a mechanism for computing capital gains based on stamp duty authorities' valuation, without replacing the actual consideration paid. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's finding, stating that the de facto payment made by the assessee cannot be replaced by the deemed value determined by stamp duty authorities. The cost of acquisition was upheld at &8377; 24 lakhs, as adopted by the assessing authority, but the additional stamp duty and expenses paid by the assessee were to be added to arrive at the revised cost of acquisition. The Tribunal vacated the Commissioner's order and restored the Assessing Officer's decision, with marginal relief for the assessee.Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, with the Tribunal directing the assessing authority to recalculate the acquisition cost by including the initial amount of &8377; 24 lakhs and the subsequent additional stamp duty and expenses incurred by the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
