Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Tribunal rules on tax assessment year; rejects acquisition date contention; dismisses rectification request

        Sujauddian kasimsab Sayyed Versus Income Tax Officer

        Sujauddian kasimsab Sayyed Versus Income Tax Officer - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Applicability of pre-amended vs. amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
        2. Consideration of the date of the "Letter of Allotment" vs. the "Agreement for Sale" for tax purposes.
        3. Tribunal's power to review its own order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Applicability of Pre-amended vs. Amended Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b):
        The applicant argued that the pre-amended provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) should be considered, as the immovable property was not purchased without consideration. They contended that the provisions of the un-amended Act should apply because the letter of allotment was issued on 27.04.2012, before the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2013, which took effect from 01.04.2014. The Tribunal, however, decided the case based on the amended provisions, specifically Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), which applies to transactions where the consideration is less than the stamp duty value by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal held that the amended provision was applicable as the "Agreement for Sale" was dated 10.09.2014, falling within the assessment year 2015-16.

        2. Consideration of the Date of the "Letter of Allotment" vs. the "Agreement for Sale":
        The applicant contended that the "Letter of Allotment" dated 27.04.2012 should be considered the date of acquisition of the property, arguing that it formalized the transaction. They cited the case of Pr. CIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan, where the date of allotment was considered the date of acquisition. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, stating that in the instant appeal, the issue was not the allotment in a construction scheme promised by the builder. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT and CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd., which held that the transfer of immovable property occurs on the date of execution of the registered document, not the date of allotment or possession. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the "Agreement for Sale" dated 10.09.2014 was the relevant date for tax purposes.

        3. Tribunal's Power to Review Its Own Order Under Section 254(2):
        The applicant sought rectification of the Tribunal's order, arguing that there were mistakes apparent from the record. They claimed that the Tribunal did not consider certain decisions and facts presented during the hearing. However, the Tribunal emphasized that it does not have the power to review its own decisions unless permitted by statute. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., to support the view that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and not subject to debate. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not pointed out any such mistake and was essentially seeking a review of the order, which is not permissible under Section 254(2).

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, stating that there was no mistake apparent from the record. The decision was based on the Supreme Court judgments and the provisions of the amended Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). The Tribunal reiterated that it does not possess the power to review its own decisions under Section 254(2) and that the applicant's request was beyond the scope of rectification. The order was pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2019.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found