TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee sold the property at a sum of Rs.2,51,50,000/- For the purpose of stamp duty, however, the value was estimated at a sum of Rs.5,19,77,000/- and on that basis the stamp duty was realized. During the assessment, it was found that the assessee had disclosed the sale price at a sum of Rs.2,51,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer fixed the sale price at a sum of Rs.5,19,77,000/- and started pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. It has been further clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. arising out of Civil Appeal No.2463 of 2010 in the decision dated 17.03.2010 that a mere making of claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation of stamp valuation authorities and appellant chose not to contest the same u/s. 50C(2) of the I.T. Act as it would not have made any difference in the tax liability of the appellant because the capital gain still remained a loss. However, the belief of appellant at the time of filing of return of income that the valuation of property by stamp valuation authorities could not be the fair mark....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also not shown as to how the assessee could be held to have actually received this amount which is in excess of the amount of Rs.2,51,50,000/-. It has also not been shown as to whether any corresponding addition has been made in the hands of the buyer. In any case, the issue is also now squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (sup....