New 2025 Fourth Amendment tightens governance, executive roles and tech leadership for recognised stock exchanges, clearing corporations under 2018 Re...
ITAT held that the immovable property purchased by the assessee was agricultural land on the date of transfer, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and Form 7 extract, and not converted into non-agricultural land. The mere levy of higher stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar, based on a draft AUDA TP Scheme and non-agricultural jantri rates, could not alter the legal character of the land for purposes of the IT Act. ITAT further found the AO's assumption of 40% acquisition by AUDA to be factually incorrect, the scheme being only in draft and unapproved form. As the assessee's declared consideration exceeded the applicable agricultural jantri value, no benefit or understatement arose so as to trigger s.56(2)(x). The addition made under s.56(2)(x) was therefore deleted and the assessee's appeal allowed.
ITAT held that the immovable property purchased by the assessee was agricultural land on the date of transfer, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and Form 7 extract, and not converted into non-agricultural land. The mere levy of higher stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar, based on a draft AUDA TP Scheme and non-agricultural jantri rates, could not alter the legal character of the land for purposes of the IT Act. ITAT further found the AO's assumption of 40% acquisition by AUDA to be factually incorrect, the scheme being only in draft and unapproved form. As the assessee's declared consideration exceeded the applicable agricultural jantri value, no benefit or understatement arose so as to trigger s.56(2)(x). The addition made under s.56(2)(x) was therefore deleted and the assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.