{"id":39546,"date":"2024-02-22T12:57:38","date_gmt":"2024-02-22T07:27:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-yogeshkumar-shantilal-mehta-2023-295-taxman-623-guj-hc\/"},"modified":"2024-02-22T12:57:38","modified_gmt":"2024-02-22T07:27:38","slug":"pcit-v-yogeshkumar-shantilal-mehta-2023-295-taxman-623-guj-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-yogeshkumar-shantilal-mehta-2023-295-taxman-623-guj-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Yogeshkumar Shantilal Mehta (2023) 295 Taxman 623 (Guj.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong>Commissioner passed the Revision order on the ground that\u00a0 the valuation as per stamp valuation is more than the actual consideration paid by the assessee. Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner on the ground that\u00a0 no presumption could be drawn on the ground that\u00a0 purchaser of property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in account books. On appeal \u00a0dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the\u00a0 Court held that it is not permissible to draw an inference from the circumstances surrounding a transaction \u00a0of sale of \u00a0property that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in his books of account. No presumption can be drawn on this aspect. Relied\u00a0 on\u00a0\u00a0 Gayatri Enterprise\u00a0v.\u00a0ITO<em>\u00a0<\/em>[2020]271 Taxman 276\/420 ITR 15\u00a0 (Guj)(HC)\u00a0 (AY. 2012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Purchase of land-Stamp valuation is more than the consideration paid-No presumption could be drawn on the ground that  purchaser of property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in account books-No substantial question of law. [S.69B, 260A]  <\/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-39546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-ahQ","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39546","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=39546"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39547,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39546\/revisions\/39547"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}