Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
The assessee purchased agricultural land whose stamp duty valuation was lower than the actual purchase consideration. The authorities sought to invoke section 56(2)(x) to tax the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration. However, the assessee consistently maintained that the land was purchased for agricultural purposes, and the stamp duty valuation treated it as non-agricultural residential land. The Tribunal held that since the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as per section 50C(2). The DVO determined the fair market value (FMV) to be only marginally higher than the purchase consideration, within the 10% range. As there was no material difference between FMV and purchase consideration, no addition u/s 56(2)(x) was warranted. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.
The assessee purchased agricultural land whose stamp duty valuation was lower than the actual purchase consideration. The authorities sought to invoke section 56(2)(x) to tax the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration. However, the assessee consistently maintained that the land was purchased for agricultural purposes, and the stamp duty valuation treated it as non-agricultural residential land. The Tribunal held that since the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as per section 50C(2). The DVO determined the fair market value (FMV) to be only marginally higher than the purchase consideration, within the 10% range. As there was no material difference between FMV and purchase consideration, no addition u/s 56(2)(x) was warranted. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4921 
