TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....os. 1 to 3 in purchasing the property. The petitioner, however, challenges the action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 of discounting the amount of apparent consideration by a sum of Rs. 40,291 and the further action of retaining a sum of Rs. 14,251 towards the liability of the vendor for payment of transfer fees to be paid to the society. Though there was a challenge to the provisions of section 269UA(6) as violative of article 14 of the Constitution that has not been pursued, considering the subsequent judgments. The disputed amounts, therefore, are: (i) Rs. 40,291 towards discounting. (ii) Rs. 14,251 towards transfer fee. The respondents had passed an order under sub-section (1) of section 269UD dated August 27, 1992. The Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration was payable under the agreement between the parties and that it was not open to the appropriate authority as contended by the Revenue to ascertain the discounted value from the date of the agreement. This issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhai J. Patel v. Union of India [2001] 247 ITR 182. The Supreme Court considered the judgment in Shrichand Raheja [1995] 213 ITR 33 and observed as under: "We are unable to agree. The High Court appears to have overlooked the purpose of Chapter XX-C and the definition of 'apparent consideration' thereunder. The purpose is to determine whether immovable property has been sought to be transferred at an undervaluation. To determine whether there has been an unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and stamp duty. Dealing with the second contention the court first noted that the definition of apparent consideration does not contemplate any deduction or reduction from the amount of apparent consideration save and except what is provided in the definition clause. The learned Division Bench then noted the deduction to be made in terms of clause 14 of the agreement of sale, which included costs such as typing, stamp and registration fees and legal fees to the lawyer which had to be borne in equal share. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the cost of typing and legal fees for execution of the agreement had not been ascertained, at least stamp duty and registration fees were capable of being ascertained on that day as they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction was absolutely unwarranted as found hereinabove on the canvass of the statutory scheme of the Act." The learned Bench quoted with approval the observations in Pradip Ramanlal Sheth [1993] 204 ITR 866 (Guj) and further noted that this view was sought to be contested on more than two occasions in the Supreme Court, but the challenge was turned down in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 219." In the instant case, what is sought to be deducted is the proportionate amount of transfer fee to be paid to the society. On behalf of the Revenue it is sought to be contended by learned counsel that the judgment of the Division Bench of this C0urt in Polycon Paper Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 182 pertained to the payment of reg....