{"id":13772,"date":"2020-11-14T14:40:19","date_gmt":"2020-11-14T14:40:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/alka-jain-smt-v-acit-2020-80-itr-464-delhi-trib\/"},"modified":"2020-11-14T14:40:19","modified_gmt":"2020-11-14T14:40:19","slug":"alka-jain-smt-v-acit-2020-80-itr-464-delhi-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/alka-jain-smt-v-acit-2020-80-itr-464-delhi-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Alka Jain (Smt.) v. ACIT (2020) 80 ITR 464 ( Delhi) (Trib)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Tribunal held that the word \u201cassessable\u201d was inserted in section\u00a050C\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Act, 1961\u00a0with effect from October 1, 2009. Thus, prior to October 1, 2009, section\u00a050C\u00a0was applicable to sale of properties by way of registered deed where the stamp value was assessed by the registration authorities and was not applicable where the properties were sold otherwise than by registered sale deed. The insertion of the word \u201cassessable\u201d by the Finance Act, 2009 with effect from October 1, 2009 was prospective in nature. In both the situations whether the agreement to sell was genuine or not, deemed sale consideration of Rs. 1.56 crores could not be invoked. . Similarly the Assessing Officer had not brought on record any adverse evidence regarding cost of the acquisition. The contention of the Assessing Officer that the transaction was not genuine was not based on any evidence brought on record. The addition had been sustained without any documentary evidence on record, and was liable to be set aside.( AY.2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 50C : Capital gains &#8211; Full value of consideration &#8211; Stamp valuation \u2013 Assessable &#8211; With effect from 1-10-2009 prospective in nature-  Deemed sale consideration of Rs. 1.56 crores could not be invoked.   [ S.45 , 48 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3A8","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13772"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13772\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13773,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13772\/revisions\/13773"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}