TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of assessee on tax assessment, citing incorrect application of tax sections.</h1> The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the application of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was incorrect as there was no proof of ... Capital Gains Issues:1. Applicability of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in determining capital gains.2. Taxability of a sum under capital gains in view of section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when gift-tax has been levied on the same transfer.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a case where the Commissioner of Income-tax raised two questions before the court regarding the assessment of capital gains. The assessee, an individual, admitted capital gains on the sale of property, but a discrepancy arose in determining the fair market value of the property. The Income-tax Officer assessed the capital gains using section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the property's market value. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed, directing the Income-tax Officer to compute capital gains based on the sale price. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that section 52(2) requires proof of understatement of consideration, which was not present in this case. Consequently, the application of section 52(2) was deemed incorrect.Regarding the taxability under section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Gift-tax Officer had already levied gift-tax on the difference between the market value and the sale price. The Tribunal upheld this assessment, citing section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act. The court referred to a previous judgment where a similar issue was addressed, leading to a decision against the Department. Therefore, the court answered the first question affirmatively in favor of the assessee. The second question, concerning the availability of exemption under section 47(iii), was considered unnecessary due to the first question's resolution. If a response were required, it would be against the assessee based on a prior judgment. Consequently, the reference was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
