CA. Bikash Bogi

“Roti, Kapda aur Makan”, are 3 basic needs of a common man, out of which buying a Makan is one of the common dreams of every Indian. Time and again various representations have been made to the government to regularize the Real Estate Sector to make it affordable for the common people.

So far as Income Tax Regulations are concerned, since last two decades, which is also the period of major economic growth of the country, Finance Ministers had given due weightage to systemize the taxing provisions, specially related to Real Estate Sector.

Why Real Estate Sector is Special?

Before moving into the topic, an interesting question pops up in my mind, regarding reason for affection of the taxing authorities with the Real Estate Sector and the answer may be hidden in the given statistics.

Real estate sector in India has come a long way by becoming one of the fastest growing markets in the world. The growth of the industry is attributed mainly to large population base, rising income level and rapid urbanization. Currently, the Indian Real Estate Market has a market size of approx USD 70 billion [INR 3.8 lakh crore] and is expected to touch the market size of USD 180 billion [INR 10 lakh crore] by the year 2020. The Real Estate sector contributes approx 5% of the national GDP. As per the recent global survey, India Ranked 20th among the top 20 Real Estate Investment markets globally with investment volume of USD 3.5 billion [INR 19000 crore] recorded in FY 2012-13 alone. Further, there is a huge demand – supply mismatch in the Indian Real Estate industry. As per an estimate Indian cities have faced a shortage of approx 15 – 20 million residential units by the end of FY 2012-13.

It is a known fact that number of property transactions in India is not recorded as per their actual market price. Due to these reasons, the taxing authorities are now giving “much needed special attention” to the Real Estate Industry”

Introduction of Deeming Fiction in Real Estate :

One of the most controversial provisions, which had a huge impact on the taxation of Real Estate Transactions, was the introduction of concept of “Deeming Fiction” through Section 50C.

Section 50C was introduced by the Finance Act 2002 with lots of hue and cry by the Industry. As per this section, when immovable property, being land or building or both held as Capital Asset, is transferred, at the value which is less than value adopted, assessed or assessable for the purpose of stamp duty, then the stamp duty value will be taken as Deemed Sale Consideration for computing capital gains.

Deeming Fiction is constitutionally valid:

The constitutional validity of Section 50C was challenged in the Madras High Court [Palaniamy vs. UOI 306 ITR 61] on the ground that an income based upon the guidelines (stamp duty value) is fanciful and imaginary and that the provision lacked legislative competence. It was also contended that the provision is discriminatory as between those assessee in whose case stamp duty value was more or less than actual consideration. The arbitrary manner in which the stamp duty value was fixed by the state authorities is evident from the variation in values within the same area under common guidelines. It was claimed that the procedure to challenge the guidelines before the state authorities, was unworkable and placed an undue burden on the taxpayer.

High Court found that any arbitrary result on application of Section 50C against the taxpayer can be avoided by the protection offered by resources to remedies available in the section itself. The court was also not inclined to accept that the guidelines valuation was an arbitrary yardstick. They are fixed after following the prescribed procedure under the Stamp Act and they are also justifiable. Accordingly, Constitutional validity of the section 50C had been upheld by the High Court.

Amendments made by Finance Act 2013 (Introduction of Section 43CA):

After a gap of 4 years, Mr. P Chidambaram had taken the charge of Finance Ministry in August 2012. Prevalent tax loopholes were in his mind while presenting the Finance Bill 2013. In his budget speech Mr. Chidambaram had said “Some tax avoidance arrangements have come to notice, and I propose to plug the loopholes”.

Before jumping into the fine print of the Amendment, it will be interesting to take a look on a few judicial pronouncements (now overruled), which was a major cause for amendment of so called avoidance arrangements:

a) Indralok Hotels (p) Ltd. (122 TTJ 145) Mumbai

In this case, the assessee company, a real estate developer, had sold two residential flats for a consideration of INR 60 lakh & INR 40 lakh respectively. The Stamp duty of these flats was INR 78 lakh and INR 72 lakh. The Assessing Officer (AO), in the scrutiny proceedings, by applying the provisions of section 50C, had taken stamp duty value of these two flats i.e. INR 150 lakh as deemed sale consideration instead of actual sale consideration i.e. INR 100 Lakh and added the differential amount as Deemed Business Income. The matter ultimately travelled to ITAT.

Hon’ble ITAT held that section 50C w.r.t. concept of deemed sale consideration shall be applicable only for transfer of ‘Capital Assets’ for calculating capital gains. In the given case the residential flats are shown as ‘Stock in Trade’ and income thereof is taxable under Business Income and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO.

b) Kan Construction & colonizers (p) Ltd. (70 DTR 169) Allahabad HC:

Assessee Company, a Real Estate Developer, had some plot of land which was shown as stock in trade. During the previous year assessee sold some plot of land for a consideration of INR 80 lakh and offered the income under Business Head. The AO had treated the said plot of land as capital assets and thereby applying the provisions of section 50C, had taken stamp duty value as sale consideration for calculating capital gains. Appellate authorities had deleted the addition made by the AO, against the department preferred an appeal before High Court.

Hon’ble High Court held that if the asset is held as stock in trade, the profits and gains from the sales is liable to be taxed as profits and gains from business and not as capital gains. Section 50C has no application where transfer of immovable property is on account of sale of stock.

c) CIT vs. Mukesh & Kishore 33 87 (Gujarat HC):

In this case the assessee had sold a plot of land, which was held by them as stock in trade. The Stamp duty value of the land was 2.2 times more than the stamp duty value. AO had made the assessment based on  stamp duty value. Matter ultimately travelled to High Court. High Court had held that as the land was held as stock in trade & the profit is taxable under business head, section 50C will not be applicable as the same was applicable only in case of transfer of capital assets.

Amendment made by the Finance Act 2013 to counter [overrule / nullify] the above judgments, as is clear from the Memorandum Explaining the Finance Bill 2013 read as under:

 “Currently, when a capital asset, being immovable property, is transferred for a consideration which is less than the value adopted, assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, then such value (stamp duty value) is taken as full value of consideration under section 50C of the Income-tax Act. These provisions do not apply to transfer of immovable property, held by the transferor as stock-in-trade.

It is proposed to provide by inserting a new section 43CA that where the consideration for the transfer of an asset (other than capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the stamp duty value, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration for the purposes of computing income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”.”

Presently when a capital asset (other than stock in trade) is sold for a consideration, which is lower than the stamp duty value, then the stamp duty value is considered as deemed sale consideration for the purpose of computing capital gains. From the definition of capital assets, as given in section 2(14), ‘Stock in Trade’ is specifically excluded.

Finance Act 2013, vide insertion of section 43CA, has adopted concept of deemed sales consideration being stamp duty value, on the transactions of land or building or both, held as ‘stock in trade’, transferred by builders / real estate developers. Sub section (1) says that where the consideration for transfer of an asset (other than capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the stamp duty value, then the stamp duty value shall be the deemed sale consideration for calculating income under the head “Profits & gains of business or profession”.  Sub section (2) states that for calculating stamp duty value under this section, provisions of sub section (2) & (3) of section 50C will be applicable. Sub section (3) states that where the date of sale agreement (for fixing final consideration) and the Registration date are not the same, then the value may be taken as value for payment of stamp duty, on the date of the agreement, provided the seller has received, on or before the agreement date, full or partial consideration from the buyer, other than cash. This Section is introduced w.e.f. 1 April 2013 and will apply to all transactions effected on or after this date.

Further proviso has been inserted to section 43CA (1) which states that where the value adopted or assessed by the authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty does not exceed one hundred and five percent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purpose of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. It must be noted that the said proviso has been inserted vide the Finance Act, 2018 and it would be effective from 1st April, 2019.

Amendments made in Section 56(2)(vii):

Earlier, when any immovable property is received by an individual or HUF without considerationthe stamp duty value of which exceeds INR 50,000, then the stamp duty value is chargeable to tax in the hands of the individual or HUF as Income from Other Sources.

Earlier Immovable received for Inadequate Consideration was not covered in the section, which is now taken into consideration by the Amendment. Memorandum explaining finance bill 2013 clears the intention of the statute, which reads as under:

The existing provision does not cover a situation where the immovable property has been received by an individual or HUF for inadequate consideration. It is proposed to amend the provisions of clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56 so as to provide that where any immovable property is received for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of the individual or HUF as income from other sources.

 Considering the fact that there may be a time gap between the date of agreement and the date of registration, it is proposed to provide that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of the immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value may be taken as on the date of the agreement, instead of that on the date of registration. This exception shall, however, apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of such immovable property.

Areas of Concern / Controversial Issues:

a) Now deeming fiction will be applicable even if the land / building is not registered with the concerned Government authorities as the transfer takes place on the basis of the mere agreement for sale.

b) The deeming fiction will make an adverse impact on genuine real estate transactions. Many a times the assessee is required to sell the property for a price much lower than the stamp duty value due to certain urgencies. There is no provision in the act to cover situations like distress sale.

Recently Chennai ITAT in case of ACIT vs. MIL Industries Ltd [33 120] had held that misfortunes happened to the assessee or difficulties faced by the assessee or matters of distress sale etc. shall not be considered for exclusion of application of section 50C and stamp duty value only shall be taken for calculating capital gains.

c) Law has not provided any tolerance band for non applicability of deeming fiction. Kolkata ITATin a recent Judgement of Heilgers Development & Constructions co. (p) ltd vs. DCIT[32 147] had held that even if there is a marginal difference between the actual sale consideration and the stamp duty value due to gap between the agreement date and the registration date, then also the stamp duty value will be taken for calculating capital gains.

d) Normally there is a time gap [3 – 5 years or more] between the launch of a particular project and completion of the project. Real Estate Developers sell the product throughout the construction period and receive the payment progressively. As per section 43CA stamp duty value [if it is higher] shall be considered as deemed sale consideration. The sale consideration, accordingly, will vary drastically and financials of the company will not reflect the true position of its profitability.

e) Can transfer of leasehold rights will be covered under the mischief of the deeming fiction. As per plain language of the section, it is clear that it will be applicable only in case of transfer of assets being land or building or both. Kolkata ITATin DCIT vs. Tejinder Singh [ITA/1459/Kol/2011]had held that section 50C does not apply to transfer of tenancy / leasehold rights. Still the issue is litigation prone.

f) Is the deeming fiction applicable on the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) ? Mumbai ITAT in ITO vs. Prem Ratan Guptahad held that section 50C does not apply to transfer of FSI and TDR. However after the introduction of 43CA, the issue may be subject to litigation.

Can assessee challenge the Stamp duty value?

In case of transactions covered u/s 50C & 43CA, statute provides an option to the assessee to challenge the stamp duty value as deemed sale consideration and ask for a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer [DVO]. When requested, the AO is duty bound to make a reference to DVO. In case the value adopted by the DVO is higher then the stamp duty value then the Stamp duty value will be the full value of consideration. A question arises here is whether the AO is duty bound to wait for the report of the DVO? The answer is no. In case of time barring assessments, they generally pass the order without waiting for DVO’s report.

In case of transaction covered u/s 56(2)(vii), in case the stamp duty has been disputed by the assessee on the grounds mentioned in section 50C(2), the assessing officer may refer the valuation of such property to a valuation officer and the provisions of section 50C shall apply in relation to the stamp duty of such property.


The intention of the statute for introduction of the concept of deeming fiction is that the people dealing in Real Estate should report the transaction honestly. After the introduction of Section 50C, the said object had been achieved to a certain extent. However, many a times, due to unavoidable circumstances, genuine transactions fall under the purview of this section. Law has not provided any safeguard to the genuine assessees.  Extension of Deeming concept on Real Estate Developers has made their life more difficult for common man. Real Estate Developers may pass on the cost of additional Tax / compliance burden on to the buyers.

( Author is a Partner with SBR & Co. Chartered Accountants, Mumbai and can be reached at [email protected])

(Republished With Amendments)

More Under Income Tax


  1. vswami says:

    The concept of ‘deeming’, as signified by the nomenclature itself, could conceivably be never taken to reflect the ‘reality’ behind. Otherwise, no deeming would have been thought of in the first place.For MORE, look through the enlightened discussion and debate in legal circles, Additionally, suggest to look up such discussions and expert commentary based on case law – say, in the leading Palkhivala’s Text Book on the income- tax law, latest updated Edition. In the present context, confined to ‘realty’ transactions, also refer the two Articles displayed on the website of Taxguru, related to the indirect tax regime (:

    @…/deeming-a-legal-fiction-service-tax-a-…; AND

    Part II –

  2. Gaurav Jain says:

    The question raised by you brings forth one of the major issue that has arisen post the introduction of amendments related to transfer of immovable properties. The amendment clearly states that in case of difference in date of agreement and date of registration, date of agreement would be taken into consideration as long as entire or some part of consideration is paid. It also mentions that the effective date for these amendments is 1st April 2014, i.e. assessment year 2014-15. However, no clarity is made about the fate of those transactions where agreement was entered during year ended march 2013 but registration is done during the year ended march 2014. Even if one looks up the memorandum explaining the amendments, no clues relating to the same has been given. Therefore the exact fate of such transactions could only be known in due course of time, as and when dispute relating to the same are resolved or further explanatory circulars are issued.

  3. Dinesh Jain says:

    Agreement for sale of stock in trade was made on Nov. 12 for Rs. 3000/- per sq. ft. Stamp duty value as on Nov. 12 is Rs. 4000/- per sq. ft. Registration of above stock in trade will be made on July 13 and stamp duty value as on July 13 is 5000/- per sq. ft. Please explain the taxability u/s 43CA and 56(2)(vii)(b)

  4. Gaurav Jain says:

    Respected Sir

    The above write up was definitely enlightening. However, I have a different view on a certain issue discussed above. Do bear me..

    In point (d) above, you point out a defect in the amendment. As per your views, the amendment lead to double taxation. However, when we go in detail, we find there is actually double avoidance of tax which consequently calls for double taxation.

    As in your example, when a developer sells a flat whose stamp value is Rs 50 lacs for Rs 40 lacs, the law maker considers the difference Rs 10 lacs as the black money component. Here, the buyer must have not reported the Rs 10 lac he is paying in black in his return. So he is taxed on the Rs 10 lac he has earned in black. Again, when he pays the developer the amount in black, the developer is again earning Rs 10 lac which he is not reporting. So he is again taxed on the same amount.
    So, as per my views, there is no doube taxation consequent to the amendment but in effect a plugging of long exploited loop hole.
    Kindly post your reply if you differ.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021