9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment involves three points under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first group of cases pertains to A. Venkataraman, while the second group relates to Ramana Balaji. The questions of law revolve around the applicability of section 52(2) for assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, deductions in the computation of capital gains, and allowance of expenses incurred in connection with the transfer of capital assets.
Group 1 - A. Venkataraman: 1. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) invoked section 52(2) to substitute the fair market value for the consideration shown in the sale document. The Tribunal held that section 52(2) applies only in cases of clear understatement of sale price. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, the court ruled in favor of the assessee against the department. 2. The assessees incurred expenses to vacate tenants from properties sold, which the Tribunal allowed as deductions under section 48(i) of the Act. The court upheld this decision, stating that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of properties, as required by the Act. 3. The claim to deduct a provision for marriage expenses from capital gains was disallowed. The court held that the mere liability or obligation under the partition deed did not qualify as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the sale of properties. The decision favored the department over the assessees. Group 2 - Ramana Balaji: 1. Similar to the first group, the court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the application of section 52(2) based on the fair market value substitution issue. 2. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow expenses incurred to secure vacant possession of properties as deductions under section 48(i) of the Act, as it was directly related to the transfer of properties. 3. The claim for deduction of marriage expenses provision was rejected, emphasizing that the obligation under the partition deed did not qualify as an allowable expenditure under section 48 of the Act. The judgment addressed the issues comprehensively, providing clarity on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
