| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
May 27, 2013 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
No s. 271(1)(c) penalty for not offering capital gains on s. 50C stamp duty value
The assessee sold property for a consideration of Rs. 2.50 crore. However, for the purpose of stamp duty, the property was valued at Rs. 5.19 crore and stamp duty was paid on that value. The assessee offered capital gains on the basis that the sale consideration was Rs. 2.50 crore. The AO invoked s. 50C and held that the sale consideration had to be taken at Rs. 5.19 crore and capital gains computed on that basis. The AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal by relying on Renu Hingorani. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:
Though the assessee could have disputed the valuation on the basis of the deemed value and chose not to do so, the fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) started. The revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him. As such, there is no scope to admit the appeal
Related Posts:
- Col. Retd. Madan Gopal Singh Nagi vs. CIT (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Our Army Soldiers, Naval Officials and Fighter Pilots are Day and Nights protecting Our Territorial Borders from Enemy Infiltration and Attacks and even while putting their life to the greatest risk, are keeping all Citizens safe and Secure and making Our life free from all such Dangers, where they don't…
- Amazonite Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Calcutta High Court) The failure to do the above is nothing short of being an act of highhandedness. Such actions of the authorities is an obloquy and reprehensible. No explanation has been provided for the same either in the affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions or by counsel appearing on behalf of…
- State Of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited (Supreme Court) if persons carry on a certain activity in such a way that there is a commonality between contributors of funds and participators in the activity, a complete identity between the two is then established. This identity is not snapped because the surplus that arises from the common fund is not…
- Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The Court accordingly finds that in the present case the impugned withholding certificate which directs TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is not based on valid reasons and is contrary to the…
- V. Ramesh vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) Expressing again our anguish and pain on the same, we direct that in future, if any such concession is made by any Authorised Representative on behalf of the Assessees, the Tribunal should take either an Affidavit from Assessee and the counsel on behalf of the Assessee or atleast a written…
- PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation…
Leave a Reply