2015 (7) TMI 1262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The facts relating to the above said issue are stated in brief. The assessee is a director and share holder in a private limited company named M/s Champion India Industries Pvt. Ltd. The AO noticed that the assessee has purchased a property from the above said company on 17.7.2008 for an agreed consideration of Rs. 40.00 lakhs. The AO noticed that the Stamp Duty Authorities had valued this property at Rs. 1,36,26,528/-. Hence the AO took the view that the difference between the stamp duty valuation and sale consideration amounting to Rs. 96,26,528/- constitutes income in the hands of the assessee and accordingly assessed the same as income of the assessee u/s 17(2)(iii) /28(iv) of the Act. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eved, the revenue has filed this appeal before us. 4. The Ld D.R strongly placed reliance on the order passed by the assessing officer. On the contrary, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee is not an employee of the above said company and hence the provisions of sec. 17(2)(iii), which is applicable for computation of Salary income, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The Ld A.R further submitted that the provisions of sec. 28(iv), relating to the value of any benefit or perquisite arising from business or the exercise of profession is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case, since it was a case of purchase of property. He further submitted that the assessee has purchased the impugned property at the price a....