{"id":18068,"date":"2021-05-10T17:30:08","date_gmt":"2021-05-10T12:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-ashok-agarwal-huf-2020-84-itr-54-207-ttj-608-jaipurtrib-2\/"},"modified":"2021-05-10T17:30:08","modified_gmt":"2021-05-10T12:00:08","slug":"cit-v-ashok-agarwal-huf-2020-84-itr-54-207-ttj-608-jaipurtrib-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-ashok-agarwal-huf-2020-84-itr-54-207-ttj-608-jaipurtrib-2\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT v. Ashok Agarwal (HUF) (2020) 84 ITR 54 \/ 207 TTJ 608 (Jaipur)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee is\u00a0 engaged in business as real estate developers. The assessee purchased immovable properties. Since the consideration shown by the assessee was less than the value for stamp duty purposes, the Assessing Officer proposed to make an addition under section\u00a056(2)(vii)\u00a0of the\u00a0Act\u00a0 on account of difference between the purchase price shown by the assessee and the District Level Committee rate of the land in the area. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the land in question was not a capital asset as the assessee had purchased the land as stock-in-trade and, therefore, the provisions of section\u00a056(2)(vii)(b)\u00a0of the Act were not applicable.\u00a0 On appeal by revenue the Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT (A)\u00a0 Relied on \u00a0Prem Chand Jain v. ACIT\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxlawsonline.com\/%5b2020%5d%20082%20ITR%20(Trib)%200522\">(2020) 82 ITR\u00a0 522<\/a>\u00a0(Jaipur)(Trib.) (AY. 2015-16)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 56 : Income from other sources-Real estate developer-Stock in trade-Capital asset-Consideration less than stamp valuation-Addition cannot be made. [S. 2(14), 56(2)(vii)(b)] <\/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-18068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-4Hq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18068","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=18068"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18068\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18069,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18068\/revisions\/18069"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}