Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that with regard to the first plot, there was variation of 9.11 per cent. between the sale consideration and the value determined by the stamp valuation authority. The amendment to section 50C(1), by insertion of the third proviso thereto and enhancing tolerance band for variations between the stated sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent., was curative in nature, and, therefore, these provisions even though stated to be prospective, ought to be held to relate back to the date when the related statutory provision of section 50C was introduced, that is, from April 1, 2003. The difference in this case was 9.11 per cent. and did not exceed the 10 per cent. variation of section 50C. Therefore, capital gains would have to be computed with reference to the actual sale consideration only. As regards  for the second plot, the rate had been determined on the basis of various factors such as the presence of a 5 feet deep hole in the ground and a drainage next to the land, a slum cluster next to the plot, drainage water flooding the land and water logging during the monsoon season. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined those facts and had simply accepted the report of the District Valuation Officer which was based on estimations. Thus, in view of the facts and the evidence available on record, the assessee was allowed 6 per cent. reduction in the difference between the sale consideration and the value determined by the District Valuation Officer. The capital gains were to be computed accordingly. (AY. 2012-13)