<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>“The cost of acquisition” is a definite sum incurred to acquire capital asset- the judgment of Punjab and Hariyana High Court (FB)** appears to be contrary to law ans settled legal position - deserve to be reviewed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=7908</link>
    <description>The note addresses the meaning of cost of acquisition as the actual sum incurred to acquire a capital asset and the limited statutory circumstances in which fair market value may substitute for that cost. It emphasizes that the option to adopt market value as on an applicable cut off date is vested in the assessee alone and cannot be imposed by the Assessing Officer. The author contends that a Punjab and Haryana Full Bench misapplied the statutory scheme by treating market value as a mandatory substitute where the Tribunal had found the cost to be nil, thereby conflicting with settled precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 07:56:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 07:56:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>“The cost of acquisition” is a definite sum incurred to acquire capital asset- the judgment of Punjab and Hariyana High Court (FB)** appears to be contrary to law ans settled legal position - deserve to be reviewed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=7908</link>
      <description>The note addresses the meaning of cost of acquisition as the actual sum incurred to acquire a capital asset and the limited statutory circumstances in which fair market value may substitute for that cost. It emphasizes that the option to adopt market value as on an applicable cut off date is vested in the assessee alone and cannot be imposed by the Assessing Officer. The author contends that a Punjab and Haryana Full Bench misapplied the statutory scheme by treating market value as a mandatory substitute where the Tribunal had found the cost to be nil, thereby conflicting with settled precedent.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 07:56:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=7908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>