Smt. Saramma Mathew v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 arises against the DCIT, Circle International Taxation, Kochi’s assessment in DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1042314936(1) dated 31.03.2022 framed as per the Dispute Resolution Panel “DRP” directions dated 08.02.2022. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the sole substantial issue before us is that of determination of cost of acquisition of the assessee’s capital asset sold/transferred in the relevant previous year. The assessee claims that there was no reference made to the Valuation Officer u/s. 55A of the Act and her Valuation Report filed in the course of the “objection proceedings” before the “DRP” has not been considered. The Revenue could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the learned lower authorities have not made any reference to the Valuation Officer u/s. 55A of the Act.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Determination of cost of acquisition of the assessee’s capital asset sold/transferred in the relevant previous year.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Shri Nilesh Suresh Chaudhari vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Pune bench

• Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Rakeshkumar Jayantilal Patel

  Ahmedabad bench

• ITA.Nos.61, 62 & 63/PUN/2022

  Pune bench

• M/s. PAR Formulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

• Sukla Banerjee vs NFC/ITO Ward-22(2), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2022-2023Allowed

• IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI

  Chennai bench