Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1980 (7) TMI 125 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal Confirms Capital Gains Calculation, Allows Necessary Expenses, and Partly Allows Assessee's Appeal The Tribunal confirmed the Capital Gains calculation based on the sale price of Rs. 1,95,000, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. Deductions of Rs. 17,000 and ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                            Tribunal Confirms Capital Gains Calculation, Allows Necessary Expenses, and Partly Allows Assessee's Appeal

                            The Tribunal confirmed the Capital Gains calculation based on the sale price of Rs. 1,95,000, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. Deductions of Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 25,000 for necessary expenses were allowed, while Rs. 20,000 deduction was disallowed due to insufficient evidence. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed in this case.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Determination of the sale price of the property for capital gains calculation.
                            2. Allowability of certain expenses as deductions for capital gains.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Determination of the Sale Price of the Property for Capital Gains Calculation:
                            The primary issue was whether the sale price of the property for capital gains should be Rs. 1,95,000 as declared by the assessee or Rs. 2,74,200 as estimated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 52(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

                            - Assessee's Argument: The property was sold as per an agreement dated 21st April 1964, at a price of Rs. 50 per sq. yd., and the delay in execution of the conveyance deed was due to litigation. Therefore, the sale price should be based on the 1964 agreement.
                            - ITO's Argument: The transfer date is 25th March 1975, and the market value on this date should be considered. The ITO did not accept the 1964 agreement price due to various reasons, including the lack of mention of the agreement in the conveyance deed and the change in parties involved.

                            The CIT(A) concluded that the provisions of Section 52(2) were not applicable as the sale price was agreed upon in 1964, and the property was finally transferred after ten years due to litigation. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating:
                            - The onus is on the Revenue to prove that the sale price stated in the sale deed is less than what was actually exchanged.
                            - There was no material evidence showing that the price in the sale deed was understated.
                            - The sale should be considered as per the 1964 agreement, not the 1975 conveyance date.

                            Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, determining the capital gains based on the sale price of Rs. 1,95,000.

                            2. Allowability of Certain Expenses as Deductions for Capital Gains:
                            The second issue was whether expenses amounting to Rs. 17,000, Rs. 25,000, and Rs. 20,000 should be allowed as deductions for capital gains calculation.

                            - Rs. 17,000: Claimed as litigation fees paid to solicitors for defending suits to clear the title deeds.
                            - Tribunal's Decision: Allowed the deduction, agreeing that the expenditure was incurred to transfer the property free from encumbrances, thus necessary for the transfer.

                            - Rs. 25,000: Paid to settle cases related to the property.
                            - Tribunal's Decision: Allowed the deduction, as the payment was necessary to clear the title and transfer the property.

                            - Rs. 20,000: Claimed to have been paid out of court to settle a claim of adverse possession.
                            - Tribunal's Decision: Disallowed the deduction due to lack of evidence. The assessee failed to provide a receipt or any substantial proof of payment.

                            The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 25,000 deductions, confirming the ITO's decision to allow these expenses. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the Rs. 20,000 deduction due to insufficient evidence.

                            Conclusion:
                            - The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, confirming the sale price for capital gains at Rs. 1,95,000.
                            - The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, permitting deductions for Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 25,000, but disallowing the Rs. 20,000 deduction due to lack of proof.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found