Home › › Page 3

Search Results For: 50C

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


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 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C should not be invoked if difference between stamp value and declared consideration is nominal, S. 14A/ Rule 8D does not apply to share application money, Pure foreign exchange hedging transactions cannot be treated as speculative transactions

Though section 50C of the Act does not speak of any such variation in terms of percentage between value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty and the registration and the actual consideration received on transfer, keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench and keeping in view of the fact that the difference between the valuation for the stamp duty and the actual consideration received by the assessee is less than 2% we are of the view that addition sustained by CIT(A) should be deleted

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Failure to apply s. 50C and offer capital gains as per the stamp value does not constitute concealment/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

For application of section 50C of the Act, it is not necessary for the A.O. to examine whether actually assessee has received anything over and above the amount mentioned in the sale deed as he simply has to go by the valuation adopted by the SRO. However, as far as imposition of penalty is concerned, there must be positive evidence before the A.O. to conclude that assessee has received the amount as valued by SRO for stamp duty purpose. Unless there are positive evidence to indicate receipt of on money to the extent of valuation made by SRO by the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The consideration has to be determined on the basis of the circle-rate prevailing on the date of execution of sale deed and not on the basis of the circle-rate prevailing on the date of registration of the sale deed

It is manifest that u/s 50C, the value adopted by the stamp-valuation authority is deemed as the consideration for computation of capital gain. However, such valuation adopted by the stamp-valuation authority should be in respect of the transfer by the assessee, of the capital assets. This enhancement was beyond the control of the assessee (seller). It is also not the case of the revenue, that the buyer has given more than the consideration that has been accepted by the parties where they executed the agreement to sale.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C/ 271(1)(c): Even if s. 50C is applicable, computing capital gain de hors it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee is not actual amount received as per the agreement of sale. The addition was made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C whereby the full value of consideration was adopted as per the valuation of the stamp duty authority for levy of stamp duty. The assessee has disclosed all relevant details as well as documents in support of its computation of Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. Consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 5 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Dharmada collections are not taxable as income, (ii) S. 50C does not apply to the purchaser of property

(i) It is not disputed that Dharmarth receipts are not taxable. This is as per the CBDT Circular (supra), as also the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. …

Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Amritsar) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 11, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C vs. s. 11: If a charitable institution invests the entire sale consideration in other capital asset, s. 50C should not be invoked

The only issue in the appeal is, therefore, whether while taking the Value of Sale of capital Asset being immoveable property in case of an institution registered u/s 12A whether the provisions of section 11(1A) will prevail or deeming provisions …

ACIT vs. The Upper India Chamber of Commerce (ITAT Lucknow) 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 »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 27, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: AO cannot straightaway adopt stamp duty value as consideration for capital gains but must offer assessee benefit of reference to DVO for valuation

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 of the property. No such inference can be made as against the assessee because …

ITO vs. Onkarmal Kajaria Family Trust (ITAT Kolkata) Read More »