TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether sections 52(1) and 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be applied only when an object of avoidance or reduction of liability to capital gains tax was established; whether mere difference between the declared sale consideration and the fair market value was sufficient for application of those provisions; and whether the remaining question on capital gains tax in the facts of the case required determination.
Issue (i): Whether sections 52(1) and 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be applied only when an object of avoidance or reduction of liability to capital gains tax was established.
Analysis: The reference was answered by applying the law declared by the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO. On that construction, the anti-avoidance provisions in section 52 were not attracted unless the requisite object of avoiding or reducing liability to capital gains tax was shown.
Conclusion: Yes. The condition of tax avoidance or reduction of liability had to be satisfied, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether mere difference between the declared sale consideration and the fair market value was sufficient for application of sections 52(1) and 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The court treated the existence of a higher fair market value by itself as insufficient. The statutory provisions could not be invoked solely because the sale price was lower than the fair market value; there had to be proof of understatement linked with the assessee's object of avoidance.
Conclusion: No. Mere disparity between fair market value and declared price was not enough, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the question on capital gains tax arising from the alleged difference between fair market value and actual sale price required a separate answer.
Analysis: In view of the affirmative answers on the applicability of sections 52(1) and 52(2) only upon proof of the requisite avoidance object, the court found it unnecessary to answer the remaining question separately.
Conclusion: The question was declined to be answered.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee on the substantive questions relating to sections 52(1) and 52(2), while the remaining question was left unanswered.
Ratio Decidendi: Sections 52(1) and 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 apply only when understatement of consideration with an object of avoiding or reducing capital gains liability is established; a mere difference between declared consideration and fair market value does not by itself justify their invocation.
TaxTMI 
