Income Tax : The article explains how violating the twin conditions under Section 50C(2) can block valuation relief and trigger taxation on hig...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that capital gains from land gifted to spouse are taxable in the husband’s hands under Section 64(1)(iv), no...
Income Tax : Learn how Section 50C impacts genuine property sales. Explore case laws, strategies, and defenses to handle unfair tax additions d...
Income Tax : Section 50C: For property sales, if the sale price is lower than the value assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority, that value is co...
Income Tax : Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society has made a Representation on 'Suggestions for Amendments in the Income Tax Act', on 24th May...
Income Tax : In relation to computing capital gains tax liability on transfer of land or building, amendment made via the Finance Act, 2016 giv...
Income Tax : Rationalisation Of Section 50c To Provide Relief Where Sale Consideration Fixed Under Agreement To Sell- Section 50C makes a spec...
Income Tax : The case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences with...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that where registration is delayed, the stamp duty value on the agreement date must be considered. The ruling ap...
Income Tax : The dispute involved incorrect invocation of valuation provisions by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that using Section 142A instead of...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that capital gains were computed without considering the DVO valuation report. It held that ignoring such evide...
Income Tax : ITAT held that vacant unsold flats attract tax on notional rent under house property. The key takeaway is that ownership triggers ...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
The ITAT confirmed that the stamp duty value on the agreement date should be used for tax calculation, not the registration date, when part consideration is paid electronically beforehand.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, asserting that once supporting documents are filed, genuine capital expenses like a boundary wall cannot be dismissed as bogus. The judgment confirms that only costs directly enhancing the asset’s value (like construction) are eligible as a cost of improvement, leading to the disallowance of security guard charges.
The Tribunal found the principles of natural justice were violated when the assessee, a villager unfamiliar with e-proceedings, was denied the opportunity to challenge the property’s stamp duty valuation and request a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the Section 147 reopening as the notice was issued within the four-year limit because the assessee hadn’t filed a return. However, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the Section 50C capital gains addition, ruling that the AO is bound by the DVO’s accepted valuation after making a reference.
The ITAT held that a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) is mandatory when the taxpayer objects to the stamp duty valuation of the property sold. The Tribunal set aside the addition of short-term capital gains, ruling that the AO erred by directly adopting the jantri value without obtaining a DVO report, and remanded the matter for re-adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the additional tax demand raised by applying Section 50C through Section 154 (Rectification), ruling that this aspect of the transaction must be adjudicated simultaneously with the primary, remanded issues of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. The final computation must await the fresh determination of the capital gains after the DVO report and verification of expenses.
The Tribunal held that since over 70% of the consideration was paid in 2012 against an allotment letter, the transfer was deemed complete in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act, despite the 2016 registration date. This precedent ensures that the stamp duty value difference provision cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions substantially completed before the law changed.
The Tribunal held that income cannot be taxed merely on a survey statement when the builder consistently follows the Project Completion Method. Additions of ₹19.2 crore were deleted.
Holding the tolerance band as a remedial measure, the Tribunal applied it retrospectively to avoid hardship where stamp duty and actual sale values differ by less than 10%.
The ITAT quashed the reassessment order as void because the final assessment was completed by an Income Tax Officer (Ward-2) who lacked jurisdiction, while the proceedings were initiated by another officer (Ward-3). The Tribunal, citing the Allahabad High Court, ruled that jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by participation.
