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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2021 (2) TMI 322 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        Tribunal remands case for property valuation review, potential impact on income assessment. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer to verify the High Court's order on property valuation enhancement. If the enhancement was ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                              Tribunal remands case for property valuation review, potential impact on income assessment.

                              The Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer to verify the High Court's order on property valuation enhancement. If the enhancement was invalidated, the income assessment would proceed without invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b). However, if the enhancement stood, the Assessing Officer was instructed to use a consistent valuation of Rs. 2,03,65,854, aligning with the vendor's case. The appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes to ensure the Assessee's fair presentation opportunity.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
                              2. Determination of the correct stamp duty value for the purchased property.
                              3. Validity of the Government's order enhancing property valuation.
                              4. Consistency in the valuation approach between the seller and purchaser under Sections 50C and 56(2)(vii)(b).

                              Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act:
                              The core issue was whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which taxes the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual purchase consideration as income from other sources, were applicable. The Assessee argued that the property was purchased for Rs. 1,61,00,000 based on an agreement in 2011, and the stamp duty value at that time was Rs. 800 per sq. yard. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and taxed the difference between the stamp duty value of Rs. 4,39,23,056 and the actual purchase consideration, amounting to Rs. 2,78,23,056. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, stating that the agreement was not registered, and payments were made in cash, thus not exempting the Assessee from the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

                              2. Determination of the Correct Stamp Duty Value:
                              The Assessee contended that the stamp duty value should be based on the date of the agreement in 2011, when the value was Rs. 800 per sq. yard, rather than the enhanced value of Rs. 3,000 per sq. yard in 2013. The Assessee's argument was supported by a High Court order quashing the Government's enhancement of property valuation. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the High Court's order and, if valid, assess the income without invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b). If the enhancement was still valid, the AO was instructed to adopt the value determined in the vendor's case.

                              3. Validity of the Government's Order Enhancing Property Valuation:
                              The Assessee presented a High Court order that quashed the Government's order enhancing the property valuation from Rs. 800 to Rs. 3,000 per sq. yard. The Tribunal emphasized that if the High Court's order was valid, the stamp duty value should remain at Rs. 800 per sq. yard, making the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) inapplicable. The AO was directed to verify this and proceed accordingly.

                              4. Consistency in Valuation Approach Between Seller and Purchaser:
                              The Tribunal noted that in the vendor's case, the AO had adopted a value of Rs. 2,03,65,854 under Section 50C, considering the property's inherent disadvantages and the valuation report from a registered valuer. The Tribunal found it inappropriate for the AO to adopt a different stamp duty value of Rs. 4,39,23,056 for the purchaser (Assessee) under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the same value of Rs. 2,03,65,854 for the Assessee if the Government's enhancement was still valid.

                              Conclusion:
                              The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to verify the High Court's order on property valuation enhancement. If the enhancement was quashed, the AO was directed to assess the income without invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b). If the enhancement was valid, the AO was instructed to adopt the value of Rs. 2,03,65,854, consistent with the vendor's case. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring the Assessee received a fair opportunity to present their case.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found