https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754664 ITAT Mumbai held that the 5% safe harbor limit introduced by the 3rd proviso to section 50C(1) through Finance Act 2018 applies retrospectively. The Tribunal ruled this was a curative amendment addressing unintended consequences of the anti-avoidance provision, acknowledging genuine variances between stamp duty values and actual consideration due to property-specific factors like location and dimensions. Following precedent from Maria Fernandes Cheryl and Rajeev Kumar Agarwal cases, the Tribunal determined curative amendments avoiding unintended consequences are retrospective by nature. The assessee was granted section 50C benefit, appeal succeeded, and impugned addition was set aside. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754664 ITAT Mumbai held that the 5% safe harbor limit introduced by the 3rd proviso to section 50C(1) through Finance Act 2018 applies retrospectively. The Tribunal ruled this was a curative amendment addressing unintended consequences of the anti-avoidance provision, acknowledging genuine variances between stamp duty values and actual consideration due to property-specific factors like location and dimensions. Following precedent from Maria Fernandes Cheryl and Rajeev Kumar Agarwal cases, the Tribunal determined curative amendments avoiding unintended consequences are retrospective by nature. The assessee was granted section 50C benefit, appeal succeeded, and impugned addition was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754664