TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2016 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter called as the 'Act') framed on 29.11.2011 by ITO, Ward 3(1), Indore. 2. As in both these two appeals the issues raised are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. Grounds of appeal raised common in both these appeals which as follows: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in confirming the reopening of the case u/s 147 r.w.s. 148. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law by confirming the assessment order so passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) by the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re Rs.42,50,000/-). Sale deed was registered in the subsequent financial year. The value adopted for stamp valuation purpose was higher. The Ld. AO issued show cause to the assessee. Alleged valuation was challenged by the assessee. Valuation of the immovable property was referred to departmental valuation officer by the Ld. AO who valued it at Rs.1,23,00,000/-. The same was adopted by the Ld. AO for calculating long term capital gain and accordingly Rs.19,00,000/- each was added in the hands of both the assessees under the head long term capital gain. 7. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed, as ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate bench in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Indorie Foot Care Pvt. Ltd. in ITANo.788/Ind/2016 dated 02.05.2017 submitted that in this case coordinate bench held that the amendment brought in section 50C of the Act by the Finance Act 2016 is clarificatory in nature. The reliance was also placed on the following judgments: a. ITO v. Modipon Ltd. reported in [2015] 57 Taxmann.com 360 (Delhi) b. DCIT v. S. Venkat Reddy (IT Appeal Nos. 974 & 975 (Hyd.) of 2010) c. Lahiri Promoters Visakhapatnam V/s. ACIT (ITA No. 12/Vizag/2009) d. Moole Rami Reddy V/s. ITO - 2011-TIOL-135-ITATVIZAG. 11. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of the lower authorities. 12. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07, whereas the AO took the value as per the sale deed registered on 04.08.2007 which was almost 4 months after the alleged date of transfer by the assessee. 14. We further find that as per the stamp duty guidelines for the financial year 2006-07 the value of the alleged property comes to Rs. 80,26,948/-. The sale consideration shown by the assessee is at Rs.85,00,000/-. However, valuation as per the stamp duty guideline for the year 2007-08 is computed at Rs.1,23,42,360/-. The case of the assessee is that the valuation year as per the stamp duty guideline for year 2006-07 should have been adopted by the Ld. AO and both the lower authorities have erred in adopting the valuation of stamp duty guidelines for the alleged property for the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on posed to us i.e. amendment inserted by way of Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 to the said provision for full valuation of consideration in certain cases u/s 50C of the Act is concerned, the mandate of the legislature is that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration for such transfer. This amendment is applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2017 as per the amendment itself. Be that it may, in our considered opinion, this amendment is not a substantial amendment but the same is clarificatory,....