COURT: | Bombay High Court |
CORAM: | M. S. Sanklecha J, S. C. Gupte J |
SECTION(S): | 50C |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | capital gains, stamp duty valuation |
COUNSEL: | Sanjiv Shah |
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
Recent Comments