TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts and confirm the addition to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s 50C of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in making addition ignoring the fact the difference in value adopted by the assessee and FMV (determined by the DVO) of the property u/s 50C is within the range of + / -10% as per the proviso to section 50C and applied retrospectively also. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal." 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income for AY.2014-15 on 31.07.2014, declaring total income of Rs. 25,27,770/-. The assessee attended hearings before the AO and filed various details and documents.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 83,74,189/-. Thus, the difference was Rs. 3,00,000/-, which was less than 10% of the valuation by the DVO. Hence, according to appellant, no addition is liable to be made as per the 3rd Proviso of section 50C of the Act. The CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee, which is at para 6.5 and 6.6 of the appellate order. He observed that 3rd Proviso was inserted by Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2019 to the effect that where the valuation of stamp valuation authority does not exceed 105% of the consideration received as a result of transfer, the consideration so received shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. This margin was revised upward to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Finance Act, 2020. 6. We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions relied upon by both sides. We find that the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in cases of Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) and M/s John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are directly on the issue. In case of M/s John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the ITAT, Mumbai referred to the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur in case of Smt. Sita Bai Ketan vs. ITO, in ITA No.823/Jp/2023, dated 27.07.2016 and ITAT, Pune in case of Rahul Construction vs. DCIT, 38 DTR 0019 and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee by directing the AO to adopt the value of sale consideration declared by the ass....