Skip to main content

Sale Deed - Consideration calculated on circle-rate prevailing on the date of execution

ITO vs. Modipon Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

 S. 50C: The consideration has to be determined on the basis of the circle-rate prevailing on the date of execution of sale deed and not on the basis of the circle-rate prevailing on the date of registration of the sale deed

Decided:.........It is manifest that u/s 50C, the value adopted by the stamp-valuation authority is deemed as the consideration for computation of capital gain. However, such valuation adopted by the stamp-valuation authority should be in respect of the transfer by the assessee, of the capital assets. The agreement to sale was duly registered, whereby, the total consideration was agreed to between parties works out to Rs.2,62,08,000/- and was adopted as the consideration for the payment of stamp-duty i.e.@ 4% of Rs.2,62,08,000/- i.e. Rs.10,48,320/-. In view thereof, the aforesaid valuation is also the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority in respect of transfer of the capital asset by the assessee. However subsequent to the said agreement to sell, there was change in the circle rate from 16th June 2014, whereby the valuation was enhanced from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per sq meter. This enhancement was beyond the control of the assessee (seller). It is also not the case of the revenue, that the buyer has given more than the consideration that has been accepted by the parties where they executed the agreement to sale. Furthermore on facts of a case, the Hon’ble Apex court held that registration of the transfer in accordance with the agreement to sale cannot be termed as the “date of transfer” as envisaged by Section 50C of the Act (Sanjeev lal & Anr. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2014) 365 ITR 389(SC)).

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more