The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate dealings as well as in real estate consultancy. Assessee is also a partner in various partnership firms from which he derives exempt income and also has agricultural income. The assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 01.02.2017 disclosing total income at Rs. Nil. During the year under review appellant had entered into Sathekhat with land owner for purchase of land for a consideration of Rs.. 1,85,00,000/-. Appellant have paid Rs. 1.00 crores against the said “Sathekhat” and balance amount of Rs. 85.00 lakhs to be paid at the time of execution of the registered agreement for sale of land by the land owners in the name of the assessee and when the name of the assessee is recorded on 7/12 extract of the property. Although the stamp duty value of the said property is Rs. 6,80,00,000 /-, the appellant agreed to purchase this property for Rs. 1,85,00,000/-, since there is litigation in the said property which is also clearly mentioned at para 7 on page 7 of the Sathekhat Meanwhile Mr. X came to know about this litigated property and he approached the appellant and agreed to purchase the said property by executing MOU with the assessee. The Ld AO has made the addition mainly on the ground that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) get attracted in the case of assessee and as per the said provision, difference between market value of land at circle rate and actual consideration, which comes to Rs. 4,95,00,000/- is income of assessee, within the meaning of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, and accordingly the Ld AO made an addition amounting of Rs. 4,95,00,000/- to the total income of assessee, under the head Income from Other Source. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO, relying upon the assessment order on the ground that the difference in market value/circle rate and the actual consideration shall become taxable in the hands of the appellant. Contention:   The assessee has executed the agreement to sale with land owners and therefore immovable property has not been purchased by the appellant and thus the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable. As the said provision is applicable to individual and HUF if he/she receives any immovable property for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. An agreement to sale is an agreement to sell the property in future. This agreement specifies the terms and conditions under which the property in question will be transferred in future. While making the addition the reliance was place upon the market value indicated by the stamp duty authorities as realistic valuation stated on the Sathekhat and the Ld AO as well as CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:   The valuation by the Stamp Authority is based on the circle rates.These circle rates adopt uniform rate of property for the entire locality, which inherently disregard the peculiar features of a particular property. In the case of the appellant the ld AO has made the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) without referring it to the DVO.   Issues :– Whether assessee’s stand is correct? Is any other arguments which can be taken. Any decisions to support assessee’s stand .

read more

FA disclosed in audit, TP report etc but not in ITR return what defence and any case law ? is it rs 10 lac per entry ?        

read more

Whether the taxpayer has the option to apply indexation on long  term capital loss incurred on sale of listed equities?

read more

Firm take PAN under AOP status wrongly can file ITR under ITR 5 as Partnership firm and can claim the same benefit as partnership firm i.e tax rate of 30%

read more

IS 50C applicable to sale of a flat between relatives  below SDV ?

read more

Hotel bills zomato at MRP of food zomato pays  after receiving sums from patrons . However, difference varies as per type of credit card used by patron. Is 194R applicable on variable difference ? [commission to zomato is separately paid by hotel ].

read more

on reconstruction of a partner ship firm weather section 45(4) or section 9B is applicable when capital asset is transferred to a retiring partner

read more

Assessee has received Notice for showing causes as to why order for reassessment should not be issued against the assessee dated 22 March 2023 The AO has passed order dated 25 March 2023 The provision read under provides time limit of 30 Days from the end of the month in which reply has been made Does the order passed becomes void-ab-initio as the month of Reply has not ended yet? or the Time limit given only provides an upper limit and not range of dates? Regards,

read more

Introduction  of a land  by a partner in AOP doing building work Is it eligible for 45[3] or not?

read more

a firm has 2 partners who are real brothers . They wish to gift a depreciated office of the  firm to first  son of third brother  and non depreciated building of the firm to another son of 3rd bro, firm has running business too for the existing partners . Any tax liability  any other section like 56 [2]/45 etc in the hands of firm, partners and  2 sons of 3rd brother ? can firm give gift as above ?    

read more