2016 (10) TMI 1333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nstead of Rs. 80,00,000/- as per sale deed of the property sold. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) have erred in accepting the calculation of FMV calculated based on the "average of three comparable actual sale instances" which includes 2 instances of Adjacent Shakti Khand II instead of based on the I sale instance" since all important parameters match with that of property sold out by appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in accepting the parameters given in sale instance I of DVBO's valuation report which mostly matched with the property sold out by the appellant. 4. Any other ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 24.9.2009 declaring total income....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the transferor of the property. The AO proceeded, however, to apply the deeming provisions of Section 50C and computed the Short Term Capital Gains based on the assessment of the Stamp Valuation Authority. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 43,14,230/- u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 21.11.2011 by making addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain. 4. Against the assessment order dated 21.11.2011, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 28.8.2015 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel of the assessee during the hearing, has stated that the issue in dispute is squarely cover....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consideration at Rs. 6,12,70,120/- against the sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- adopted by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the difference between the sale consideration of the property as per registered Sale Deed as against the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs. 12,70,120/- i.e. 2.11 %. Since the difference was within the tolerabie limits, which is 15% of variation, as recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 199 ITR 530, no addition should be made. This decision has been followed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Rahul construction vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1543/PN/2007 (2010) 38 DTR (Pune Trib.). 4.1. On the contrary, th....