• Sec. 50C – JCIT vs D. Sesha Giri Rao

[2018] 89 taxmann.com 3 (Hyd Trib)

Where assessee was not a real owner of the property but held the same only in fiduciary capacity and he transferred it on representative basis, thus provisions of section 50C could not be applied to assessee’s case in order to compute capital gain arising from sale of said property

• Sec. 56(2)(vi) – Nilesh Janardan Thakur v. ITO

[2017] 88 taxmann.com 166 (Mumbai – Trib.)

Company “SPCL” advanced sum to assessee for procurement of land for development. There being no active development of land; AO considered such advance as income u/s 56(2)(vi) which was rejected by ITAT

• Sec. 54 – Mustansir I Tehsildar vs. ITO

[2017] 88 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib)

Acquisition of new flat in an under-construction apartment is a case of construction of property and not purchase

Further its construction could even start before date of sale of property, but it should be completed within 3 years from that date to be eligible for deduction u/s 54

• Sec. 2(13) – V. A. Jose vs.DCIT

[2018] 89 taxmann.com 2 (Ker HC)

Where assessee, a NRI, having purchased agricultural land, levelled it and sold same at higher price, transaction of sale of land amounted to ‘adventure in nature of trade’ and thus profit arising from said transaction was taxable as ‘business income

• Sec. 55 – PCIT vs. Smt. Vidhi Agarwal

[2017] 88 taxmann.com 306 (All HC)

While determining cost of acquisition of property, approved valuer’s report itself is a piece of evidence and Act does not require that opinion of approved valuer should be supported with further evidence in shape of circle rate or exemplar sale deeds etc. to substantiate its contents