https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36434 Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies only where understatement of the real transfer consideration is proved, not merely because the fair market value of a capital asset exceeds the declared sale price by 15% or more. Reading the provision with sections 45, 48 and related transfer provisions, the Karnataka HC held that the statutory language targets actual concealment of consideration shown in the deed, and cannot be invoked on market-value disparity alone. The court therefore rejected the Revenue's contention that a numerical difference by itself is enough and confined the provision to cases where higher consideration was actually received but not disclosed. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:10:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36434 Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies only where understatement of the real transfer consideration is proved, not merely because the fair market value of a capital asset exceeds the declared sale price by 15% or more. Reading the provision with sections 45, 48 and related transfer provisions, the Karnataka HC held that the statutory language targets actual concealment of consideration shown in the deed, and cannot be invoked on market-value disparity alone. The court therefore rejected the Revenue's contention that a numerical difference by itself is enough and confined the provision to cases where higher consideration was actually received but not disclosed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36434