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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on the facts of the case, the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority could be applied under section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without making a reference to the valuation officer when the assessee disputed the adopted value and claimed that the actual consideration reflected the fair market value.
Analysis: The assessee did not merely dispute the stamp value in general terms but asserted that the adopted value exceeded the actual transaction value and referred to comparable transfers in the same locality at lower consideration. That was sufficient to attract section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Once such objection was raised, the Assessing Officer was required to adopt the statutory machinery for determining value and not to conclude the matter solely on the basis of the stamp valuation. The valuation process contemplated a reference for independent determination, and the assessee could not be denied that statutory safeguard merely because the stamp authority's figure had been used for registration purposes.
Conclusion: The matter could not be decided finally on the basis of the stamp valuation alone, and the Assessing Officer was required to refer the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer and recompute capital gains accordingly.