https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38477 Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act applied only where there was material showing understatement of consideration in a transfer of capital assets; it could not be invoked merely because the property might have fetched a higher market value. On the facts, the assessee had disclosed the actual consideration for transfer of shares and no evidence suggested any additional unreported amount, so the deeming provision was inapplicable and the Revenue failed. The Tribunal was also unjustified in directing a de novo enquiry, because there was no basis to suspect suppression of consideration and further investigation would have served no purpose. en-us Fri, 24 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:09:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38477 Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act applied only where there was material showing understatement of consideration in a transfer of capital assets; it could not be invoked merely because the property might have fetched a higher market value. On the facts, the assessee had disclosed the actual consideration for transfer of shares and no evidence suggested any additional unreported amount, so the deeming provision was inapplicable and the Revenue failed. The Tribunal was also unjustified in directing a de novo enquiry, because there was no basis to suspect suppression of consideration and further investigation would have served no purpose. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38477