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

        Assessee's appeal allowed, deletion of additions for under-valuation of property and forfeited amount.

        Amarjeet Kaur, C/o L.N. Nangalya & Co. Versus ACIT, Circle-46 (1), New Delhi.

        Amarjeet Kaur, C/o L.N. Nangalya & Co. Versus ACIT, Circle-46 (1), New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Addition of Rs. 45.50 lakhs on account of alleged under-valuation of property.
        2. Addition of Rs. 1.30 crores on account of forfeited amount not received by the assessee.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Addition of Rs. 45.50 lakhs on account of alleged under-valuation of property:

        The assessee sold her undivided 12.5% share in a property at 11B, Jungpura, New Delhi to her son for Rs. 74.50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) compared this with the sale of a 25% share in the same property by another family member to the assessee's son for Rs. 2.40 crores. The AO concluded that the sale by the assessee was undervalued and made an addition of Rs. 45.50 lakhs, being the difference between the value of 12.5% share at Rs. 1.20 crores and the sale value of Rs. 74.50 lakhs.

        The CIT(A) upheld this addition, reasoning that the property was grossly undervalued and the transaction was not at arm's length, despite the property being sold at the prevailing circle rate and the portion sold being at the back side of the building.

        The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the property was sold at the prevailing market rate and the AO did not invoke the provisions of section 50C nor refer the matter to the DVO. The Tribunal noted that the AO had no material evidence to show that the assessee received more than the amount mentioned in the sale deed. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was based on presumption and surmises and directed the AO to delete the addition.

        2. Addition of Rs. 1.30 crores on account of forfeited amount not received by the assessee:

        The assessee sold a property at 264, Industrial Area, Phase III, Okhla, New Delhi for Rs. 39.30 crores but reported the sale consideration as Rs. 37,59,20,845/- due to Rs. 1.50 crores forfeited by the buyer and brokerage of Rs. 20,79,155/-. The AO rejected the claim of forfeiture and made an addition of Rs. 1.30 crores based on information obtained from the buyer, M/s Hero Corporate Services Ltd., which indicated that Rs. 1,29,51,720/- was still payable to the assessee.

        The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the amount was still outstanding in the buyer's books and the non-receipt of the amount did not change the character of the receipt.

        The Tribunal found that the sale deed explicitly mentioned that Rs. 2.50 crores was retained by the buyer to be released upon the fulfillment of certain obligations by the assessee. Since the assessee could not fulfill these obligations, the amount was forfeited by the buyer. The Tribunal concluded that the non-receipt of the amount due to non-fulfillment of obligations meant it could not be part of the apparent consideration. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition but clarified that if the assessee receives any amount from the forfeited sum in the future, it should be taxed in the year of receipt.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the deletion of both additions: Rs. 45.50 lakhs on account of alleged under-valuation of property and Rs. 1.30 crores on account of the forfeited amount not received. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 08.06.2021.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found