TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) failed to consider the fact that the assessee's claim for interest of Rs. 4,84,25,447/-under Section 24(b) was in excess by Rs. 76,66,066/-. The assessee only provided valid evidence for interest payments amounting to Rs. 4,07,59,381/-with respect to loans from Union Bank of India and State Bank of India, which were exclusively used for acquiring the 19th-floor property and Interest payments on loans for the 18th-floor flat and other properties cannot be claimed under this section in relation to the 19thfloor flat." 3. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) incorrectly allowed the excess claim of Rs. 76,66,066/- in violation of the provisions of Section. 24b1 which specifically restricts interest deductions to self-occupied property. The interest paid on loans for properties other than the let-out I9th-floor property should not have been considered for deduction under Section 24(b)." 4. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,26,58,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was added to the total income of the assessee under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee was asked to furnish the necessary details which were supplied to the AO. The assessee filed the statement/certificates issued by the banks along with a statement showing the utilization of funds against the premises. After perusing the details, the AO was of the opinion that the interest claimed u/s 24(b) of the Act does not wholly pertain to the loans taken for acquiring the 19th floor which was let out. The AO was also of the opinion that only the loans taken from SBI & UBI are for the 19th Floor. The AO found that the loan of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- obtained from Bank of Baroda has been used for acquiring Flat No. 1703 & 1704 in Lodha Costerja. The AO on his belief considered the interest paid for housing loan from UBI & SBI totaling to Rs. 4,07,59,381/- as allowable deduction and interest paid on the loan taken from Bank of Baroda of Rs. 76,66,066/- was disallowed. 4.1. Proceeding further, the AO found that the assessee has purchased flat at 18th Floor in Lodha Costerja and on perusal of the details, the AO found that the agreement value of the property is Rs. 40,50,00,000/- whereas the stamp duty value u/s 50C is Rs. 43,76,58,000/-. The AO accordingly added Rs. 3,26,58,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itled for the claim of deduction of interest u/s 24(b) of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). This ground is accordingly dismissed. 8. Insofar as, the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(ii) of the Act is concerned, the undisputed fact is that the difference between the agreement value and stamp value is much less than 10%. Therefore, the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Joseph Mudaliar vs. DCIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 250 (Mumbai-Trib.), squarely applies. The relevant findings read as under:- "9. Before dealing with the substantive issue, it is necessary to look into the relevant statutory provisions. By the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 section 50C was introduced in the statute with effect from 1-4-2010. As per the provision of section 50C(1) of the Act, where the consideration received on sale of an immovable asset by an assessee is less than the value determined by the stamp valuation authority, the value so determined would be deemed to be the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer, for computing capital gain. By Finance Act, 2018, the third proviso to section 50C(1) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he stamp duty authority determines the value of a property in excess of the declared sale consideration. However, the crucial issue which needs to be considered is, whether the third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act providing exception in case the difference in value is less than 10%, would be applicable to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. In this context, the argument of the learned departmental representative is, firstly, there is no provision like third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act in section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and secondly, even if there is one, it will apply prospectively. 12. As could be seen, section 56(2)(vii) in its original form was introduced by Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 1-10-2009. However, by Finance Act, 2017 it was provided that section 56(2)(vii)(2) would be applicable in respect of the specified transaction undertaken between 1st day of October, 2009 and before 1st day of April, 2017. This amendment was effective from 1-4-2017. Simultaneously with the aforesaid amendment made to section 56(2)(vii), the Finance Act, 2017 also introduced clause (x) to section 56(2) to bring within its ambit the transactions referred to in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve intention becomes absolutely clear that wherever the statute provides for adoption of the value determined by the stamp valuation authority as the deemed sale consideration, in case, it exceeds declared sale consideration, exceptions have also been provided not to adopt the market value if the difference between the value declared by the assessee and determined by the stamp duty authority is within a permissible limit. 15. The reason for not providing such an exception in section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is patent and obvious. As could be seen, the amendments to sections 50C, 56(2)(x) and 43CA providing for exception in case of marginal difference between the declared sale consideration and value determined by the stamp valuation authority were introduced to the statute by Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 1-4-2019. Meaning thereby, the legislature did not felt the necessity of introducing such an exception to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) simply for the reason that such provision was applicable for a period between 1st October, 2009 to 1st April, 2017. Therefore, non-introduction of similar exception to section 56(2)(vii(b)(ii) cannot be held against the assessee. Rather, sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....text, we get support from the following decisions:- 1. Sandip Patil (supra) 2. Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) 19. Thus, keeping in view the discussions hereinabove, we delete the addition of Rs. 23,30,694/-. This ground is allowed." 9. Similar view was taken by the Chennai Bench in the case of Thiduvil Balakrishnan vs. DCIT [2023] 151 taxmann.com 484 (Chennai- Trib.). The relevant findings read as under:- "10. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, if difference between consideration paid for purchase of property and guideline value of said property, then said difference should be treated as income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is a difference between guideline value of the property and consideration paid for purchase of said property, because the registration authority has levied an additional stamp duty of Rs. 66,000/- while registering the property. The AO has made addition of Rs. 8,25,000/- being difference between....