https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397112 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the addition made by the Revenue. It held that the amended Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be applied retrospectively, basing valuation on the agreement date rather than the registration date. The Tribunal determined that the assessee, acting as a constituted attorney, was not the actual owner, and thus Section 50C could not apply to him personally. The appeal was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under capital gains was deleted. The Tribunal also noted procedural delays due to COVID-19 should be excluded from the limitation period. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2024 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397112 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the addition made by the Revenue. It held that the amended Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be applied retrospectively, basing valuation on the agreement date rather than the registration date. The Tribunal determined that the assessee, acting as a constituted attorney, was not the actual owner, and thus Section 50C could not apply to him personally. The appeal was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under capital gains was deleted. The Tribunal also noted procedural delays due to COVID-19 should be excluded from the limitation period. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397112