Income Tax : The law permits taxpayers to adopt the stamp duty value on the agreement date instead of the registration date where prescribed co...
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 : 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 : Tribunal held that purchase of land outside the prescribed period does not automatically disqualify exemption on construction of a...
Income Tax : The Lucknow ITAT held that reassessment proceedings cannot survive where the reasons recorded contain incorrect facts and lack pro...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that a land sale completed before 01.07.2012 could not be subjected to a DVO reference under the amended Section...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the Assessing Officer could not refer property valuation to the DVO when the assessee relie...
Income Tax : The Court held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A where the assessee...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Assessee sold the land vide registered agreement dated 27th May 2004, for consideration of Rs.2,62,08,000/- and on the said date the circle rate was Rs.13,000/- per sq meter. However, on the date of registration of sale-deed, i.e. 16th September 2004, the circle-rate enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per sq meter.
The fact of actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the addition was made simply by applying the deeming provisions of section 50C. Therefore, in view of the various decisions as relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative as well as by the CIT(A), we do not find any error in the impugned order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c).
(A) Concept of Stamp Duty Value- It should be noted that the Stamp Duty Basis Valuation is applicable only in the transactions pertaining to Immoveable Property in the Income Tax Act 1961. It is similar to the concept of Fair Market Value (FMV).
No addition can be sustained in this case, as, neither there is any investigation whatsoever made by the Assessing Officer nor was any evidence gathered by him. Merely because the market value as per the stamp valuation authorities and the sale price are at variance, no addition can be made to the business income.
First contention of the assessee is that the sale consideration cannot be taken more than the actual sale consideration shown in the transfer deed i.e. a sum of Rs.4 1.51 crores. The alternative contention is that if the sale consideration is taken as valuation done by the Stamp Valuation Authorities then there is a mistake
Assessee is a charitable society and is registered under section 12A of the Act. The question of applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act on transfer of capital asset in the case of a charitable society was examined by the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shri. Dwarikadhish Temple Trust, Kanpur in I.T.A. No. 256 & 257/LKW/2011, in which the Tribunal has held that where the entire sale consideration was invested in other capital asset, provisions of section 50C of the Act should not be invoked.
According to decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case where addition is made on account of application of section 50C and Revenue failed to produce any evidence to the effect that assessee has actually received more amount than that shown by it on the sale of property then penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
Presumably, the case of the assessee was that price offered by the buyer was the highest prevailing price in the market. If this is his case then it is difficult to accept the proposition that the assessee had accepted that the price fixed by the District Sub Registrar was the fair market value
Assessee can claim exemption under section 54EC on transfer of depreciable assets held for more than thirty-six months by investing in bonds notified for the purpose of Section 54EC. Further the assessee can claim exemption upto Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by investing the gain in the bonds notified under section 54EC if he invests Rs. 50,00,000/- each in two separate financial years but within six months from the date of transfer.
Section 50C is not final determination to prove that it is a case of escapement of income. The report of approved valuer may give estimated figure on the basis of facts of each case. Therefore, on mere applicability of section 50C would not disclose any escapement of income in the facts and circumstances of the case.
