Retrospective Section 50C relief permits stamp duty value on the agreement date where the transfer is genuine.

The proviso to Section 50C(1) was treated as curative because it removes the anomaly caused when the agreement date and registration date differ, so it applies retrospectively. Where the transfer agreement is genuine and part consideration has been received through banking channels on the agreement date, the stamp duty value for capital gains purposes is to be taken as on that date rather than the later registration date. On the facts, the agreement was accepted as genuine and the assessee was entitled to the agreement-date value. The Revenue's challenge failed and the computation in favour of the assessee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2016 applies retrospectively, and whether the full value of consideration for capital gains has to be computed with reference to the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement to sell instead of the date of registration.

Analysis: The dispute concerned computation of capital gains where the sale agreement and the registration of the conveyance occurred on different dates, and the assessee had received part consideration through banking channels on the agreement date. The proviso to Section 50C(1) was introduced to remove the hardship caused where agreement and registration dates differ, and its language, read with the similar scheme under Section 43CA, shows that the amendment was intended to cure an anomaly rather than create a new restriction. The binding precedent relied upon held that the proviso is curative in nature and therefore operates retrospectively from the date the provision came into existence. On the facts, the genuineness of the agreement was not doubted and the earlier payments were made by cheque, so the assessee was entitled to adoption of the stamp duty value prevailing on the agreement date.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 50C(1) applies retrospectively, and the assessee's capital gains were to be computed on the basis of the agreement date value. The Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the computation adopted in favour of the assessee was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A proviso inserted to remove an anomaly or undue hardship in the computation of capital gains is curative in nature and, where the agreement date and registration date differ and the transaction is genuine, it applies retrospectively to permit adoption of the stamp duty value on the agreement date.

---