Case Law Details
Ruchita Jindal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for transfer of property and ate of registration is not same, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment is to be taken.
Facts- The assessment of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee.
During the year under consideration the assessee has purchased a property on 23.06.2014 for the consideration of Rs. 7 crores. However, the value of the said flat as per valuation of stamp authorities was Rs.7,61,57,000/-. On the request of the assesse reference was made to the Departmental Valuation Officer for valuation of the said property u/s 142A of the Act on 09.03.2022. The District Valuation Officer, Mumbai vide valuation report determined the fair market value of the said purchased property at Rs.7,09,37,033/- on the date agreement as on 23.06.2014. The DVO has also determined value of the said property on the date of booking allotment as on 01.011.2013 at Rs. 7,05,66,565/- .
During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that for the purpose of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) the date of allotment i.e be considered as relevant date. However, the A.O has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and added the difference between the purchase price and fair market value of the property determined by the DVO as on the date of agreement and added the amount of Rs.9,37,033/- to the total income of the assessee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
