Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (7) TMI 1096

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter "the Act") on 31.03.2022. 2. The assessee has filed return of income on 12.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 5,30,500/-. The A.O has reopened the assessment for the reason that there was difference between the registered value and market value of the property purchased of Rs. 33,11,285/- which needs to be brought to tax u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee had booked a Row House and paid by way of account payee cheque on 08.10.2009. The assessee has entered into agreement for sale. The deed of sale was registered for sale consideration was fixed and also property which is to be convened through the agreement for sale. The deed of sale w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....20.10.2011. As per the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be considered, provided part of the consideration has been paid by banking channels before the agreement date. 6. In the present case, the assessee has made part payment before the date of the agreement through account payee cheque. This issue has been considered by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Shyamkumar Madhavdas Chugh vs. ACIT (supra), wherein it was held that if the agreement fixing the consideration is prior to the date of registration and part payment has been made through banking channels bef....