Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal adjusts sale value for tax purposes, allows 10% tolerance.</h1> The Tribunal allowed a 10% tolerance limit for differences in sale values declared by the assessee and determined by the Assessing Officer under section ... Capital Gain in respect of sale of agricultural land - Addition invoking provision of section 50C - difference between the sale value declared by the assessee and the sale value determined by the Assessing Officer by 13% - approval of tolerance limit of 15% variation in estimating sale value - DR submitted that in proceedings before the First Appellate Authority the assessee had offered addition over and above 10% of the difference between the sale value disclosed by the assessee and Government valuation - contentions of the assessee is that where the difference in the sale value declared by the assessee and value determined by the Assessing Officer is less than 15% no addition is warranted - HELD THAT:- We find in the present case there is difference of 13% in the value declared by the assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2012 (1) TMI 229 - ITAT PUNE] has taken a tolerance limit of difference in two valuations as 10%. Similar view has been taken in the case of Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2001 (11) TMI 1016 - HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR]. The assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had voluntarily offered for the addition of sale consideration over and above the difference of 10%. Taking into consideration entirety of facts and the decisions cited by the assessee, to meet the ends of justice the benefit of 10% difference of sale value is allowed. The sale consideration over and above 10% is added for the purpose of determining Capital Gains. The appeal of assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid. Issues involved:1. Interpretation of provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the valuation of sale consideration for capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land.2. Determination of the permissible tolerance limit for the difference between the sale value declared by the assessee and the value determined by the Assessing Officer.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolved around the application of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the valuation of sale consideration for capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land. The assessee had sold agricultural land for a declared value of Rs. 45,00,000 and offered the gain under the head Capital Gains. However, the Assessing Officer invoked section 50C and determined the sale value as Rs. 51,75,000, resulting in an addition of Rs. 6,75,000 to the capital gains. The assessee contested this addition through appeals, arguing that a difference of less than 15% between the declared value and the value determined by the Assessing Officer should not warrant an addition.Issue 2: The second issue involved determining the permissible tolerance limit for the difference between the sale value declared by the assessee and the value determined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee cited various legal precedents to support their contention, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of India & Ors., which approved a tolerance limit of 15% variation in estimating sale value. Additionally, the assessee referred to the Pune Bench of Tribunal and the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court decisions to establish a tolerance limit of 10% for such differences.Judgment: After considering the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal acknowledged that there was a 13% difference between the declared value and the value determined by the Assessing Officer in this case. Citing the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court, the Tribunal concluded that a tolerance limit of 10% for such differences was appropriate. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the benefit of a 10% difference in the sale value and directed that the sale consideration over and above this limit should be added for the purpose of determining Capital Gains. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, modifying the impugned order to reflect the adjustment based on the permissible tolerance limit.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision provided clarity on the interpretation and application of section 50C in cases involving the sale of agricultural land, establishing a 10% tolerance limit for differences in sale values declared by the assessee and determined by the Assessing Officer.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found