Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: stamp duty valuation

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S 50C does not apply to transfer of land and building, being leasehold property

The Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221 (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be challenged

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: If the difference between the sale consideration of the property shown by the assessee and the FMV determined by the DVO u/s 50C(2) is less than 10%, the AO is not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. Unregistered sale agreements prior to 01.10.2009 are not subject to s. 50C as per CBDT Circular No.5/10 dated 03.06.2010

We are also inclined to agree with learned AR Mr. Shashank Dandu that in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Rahul Constructions vs. DCIT (Pune) (Trib.) 38 DTR 19 (2010) ITA No.1543/Pn/2007 since the difference between the sale consideration of the property shown by the assessee and the FMV determined by the DVO under Section 50C(2) being less than 10 per cent, AO was not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The proviso to s. 50C inserted by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to provide that the stamp duty valuation of property on the date of execution of the agreement to sell should be adopted instead of the valuation on the date of execution of the sale deed is curative and intended to remove an undue hardship to the assessee and an apparent incongruity. It should accordingly be given retrospective effect from 1st April 2003, i.e. the date effective from which s. 50C was introduced

The Proviso to Section 50C inserted by the Finance Act 2016, with effect from 1st April 2017, on the recommendation of the Income Tax Simplification Committee (Easwar Committee) recognizes the genuine and intended hardship in the cases in which the date of agreement to sell is prior to the date of sale and introduces welcome amendments to the statue to take the remedial measures. However, this brings no relief to the assessee as the amendment is introduced only with prospective effect from 1st April 2017. There cannot be any dispute that this amendment in the scheme of Section 50C has been made to remove an incongruity, resulting in undue hardship to the assessee, as is evident from the observation in Easwar Committee report to the effect that “The (then prevailing) provisions of section 50C do not provide any relief where the seller has entered into an agreement to sell the asset much before the actual date of transfer of the immovable property and the sale consideration has been fixed in such agreement” recognizing the incongruity that the date agreement of sell has been ignored in the statute even though it was crucial as it was at this point of time that the sale consideration is finalized. The incongruity in the statute was glaring and undue hardship not in dispute

Read more ›

Posted on by Dhaval Shah — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C does not apply to transfer of leasehold rights in land

Section 50C of the Act provides that if the consideration received or accruing is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority of the State Government for such transfer then the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration and the capital gains will be computed accordingly. The phraseology of section 50C of the Act clearly provides that it would apply only to “a capital asset, being land or building or both”. The moot question before us is as to whether such expression would cover the transfer of a capital asset being leasehold rights in land or building. There cannot be a dispute to the proposition that the expression land by itself cannot include within its fold leasehold right in land also. Of-course, leasehold right in land is also a capital asset and we find no fault with this stand of the Revenue. So however, every kind of a ‘capital asset’ is not covered within the scope of section 50C of the Act for the purposes of ascertaining the full value of consideration. Infact, the heading of section itself provides that it is “Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases”. Therefore, there is a significance to the expression “a capital asset, being land or building or both” contained in section 50C of the Act. The significance is that only capital asset being land or building or both are covered within the scope of section 50C of the Act, and not all kinds of capital assets

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 5 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The stamp duty value on the date of agreement & not date of sale deed has to be taken. The nature of the property on the date of agreement has to be considered. Q whether proviso to s. 56(2)(vii)(b) is curative and retrospective left open

The issue is as to whether the date of agreement or the date of execution of sale deed has to be considered for the purpose of adopting the SRO value under S.50C of the Act. We find that this issue is now settled in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shantilal Motilal V/s. CIT(365 ITR 389) as well as decisions of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in the cases of M/s. Lahiri Promoters Visakhapatnam V/s. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Visakhapatnam (ITA No.12/Vizag/2009 dated 22.6.2010) and Moole Rami Reddy V/s. ITO (ITA No.311/Vizag/2010 dated 10.12.2010). It is therefore, now settled that the SRO value as on the date of agreement of sale has to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gains

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 3, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C(2): Reference to DVO cannot be made if assessee has challenged the valuation by the stamp authorities and even if the said challenge is dismissed on ground that as purchaser paid the duty, assessee had no locus standi to challenge stamp valuation

The mandate of section 50C is clear and the sale consideration shall be deemed to be the value adopted or assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The only exception provided is that firstly the assessee should claim before AO that …

Seksaria Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »