Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
