https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27881 For capital gains taxation under section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, the revenue must independently establish both understatement of the apparent sale consideration and actual receipt of more than what was declared. A finding recorded in acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA, including a conclusion under section 269F(6), based only on the statutory presumption arising from the gap between apparent consideration and fair market value, is not enough by itself. The acquisition order must contain separate material proving extra receipt; otherwise, it cannot support a referable question of law on section 52(2). The text therefore emphasizes that the burden remains on the revenue and cannot be discharged by presumption alone. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:55:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27881 For capital gains taxation under section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, the revenue must independently establish both understatement of the apparent sale consideration and actual receipt of more than what was declared. A finding recorded in acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA, including a conclusion under section 269F(6), based only on the statutory presumption arising from the gap between apparent consideration and fair market value, is not enough by itself. The acquisition order must contain separate material proving extra receipt; otherwise, it cannot support a referable question of law on section 52(2). The text therefore emphasizes that the burden remains on the revenue and cannot be discharged by presumption alone. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27881