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...
Chimanlal Manilal Patel Vs. ACIT The AO has not disputed the consideration received by the assessee. The addition has been made on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. The assessee has furnished all the facts of sale, documents! material before the AO. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of the documents/details furnished by the assessee. Only because the assessee agreed to the additions because of the deeming provisions it cannot be construed to be filing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. The assessee agreed to addition on the basis of valuation made by the stamp valuation authority cannot be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per the sale agreement is seemed to be incorrect and wrong. In view of these facts we are of the considered view that penalty cannot be levied on the basis of deeming provision.
Section 50C of the Act is a deeming provision and ostensibly involves creation of an additional tax liability on the assessee and, therefore, notwithstanding the presence of the expression ‘may’ in section 50C(2)(a), the Assessing Officer in the instant case (where assessee had claimed in his return itself that stamp duty values exceeds FMV) ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for ascertaining the value of the capital asset in question.
For application of Sec.50C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both. If the capital asset under transfer cannot be described as land or building or both then section 50C will cease to apply. From the facts of the case narrated above, it is seen that the assessee has transferred booking rights and received back the booking advance. Booking advance cannot be equated with the capital asset and therefore section 50C cannot be invoked.
It is sine qua non for application of Section 50 C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both, but then a leasehold right in such a capital asset cannot be equated with the capital asset per se. We are, therefore, unable to see any merits in revenue’s contention that even when a leasehold right in land or building or both is transferred, the provisions of Section 50C can be invoked.
The language in section 55A does not refer the ‘value of consideration’ but only uses the term ‘Fair Market value’. So the scope of the section gets con-fined to determine the fair market value of a capital asset only. Thus, considering the language of section 48 the value so deter¬mined cannot be substituted for ‘Full value of consideration’. – Section 50C states that the AO can refer to DVO u/s. 55A only if the assessee claims that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeds their fair market value or the value so adopted by stamp valuation authority has not been disputed by any authority, Court or High Court.
On applicability of Section 50C of the Act in absence of registered document -Capital gain has to be computed on the basis of sale consideration received or accruing to the taxpayer. Even if the document was not registered, the capital gain has to be computed on the basis of the sale consideration shown and received by the taxpayer unless there was material to show that the sale consideration was understated. In this case, the document was not registered and no stamp duty had been paid. Therefore, stamp duty value cannot be adopted for the purpose of computation of capital gain and the value shown in the agreement has to be adopted as there is no material to show that the taxpayer had understated the sale consideration.
The ultimate object and purpose of Section 50C of the IT Act is to see that the undisclosed income of capital gains received by the assessees should be taxed and the law should not encourage and permit the assessee to peg down the market value at their whims and fancy to avoid tax.
Subash Chand Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh)- In the present case, the AO has found that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 27,90,000/- towards purchase of flat/plot and for meeting household expenses in the year under appeal. The assessee could not have paid the aforesaid amount without having the money with him. No material has been placed before us to establish that the assessee had actually been paid by the buyer any money over and above Rs. 8.00 lakhs or that the assessee has actually received from the buyer of the agricultural land over and above Rs. 8 lakhs.
Asst. Director of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ranjay Gulati (ITAT Delhi)– Under section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the income chargeable under the head “Capital gains” shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following […]
Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to adopt the value of the property sold as per DVO report for the purpose of computing capital gains in place of value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority and considered by AO as per provisions of Section 50C(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Held, Yes If the fair market value as assessed by the DVO is lower than the value adopted by Stamp Duty Authorities for collecting stamp duty. Then value so adopted by DVO has to be adopted by the AO for the purpose of computation of LTCG.
