TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as well on fact in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and in holding assessment order has erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its original return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 on 25.07.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 17.10.2019, accepting the returned income at Nil. However, this assessment order was later set aside under Section 263 of the Act. Consequently, a revised order under Section 143(3) r.w.s 263 and 144B was passed on 21.03.2023, again assessing the income at Nil without making any variation. Principal CIT again initiated 263 proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VO under Section 55A. The assessee submitted that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not applicable as it applied only to individuals and HUFs, and not to partnership firms, and cited relevant case law in support. Even if the provision was deemed applicable, the AO had complied with his legal duty by referring the matter to the DVO, and the absence of a DVO report before the limitation date did not render the order erroneous. However, Principal CIT dismissed the arguments of the assessee and held that section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was attracted as the purchase price was below the stamp duty valuation. It was held that the AO had been directed by the earlier 263 order to specifically address this issue, but had failed to take the appropriate action b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 56(2)(x) of the Act. While passing the order, the ITAT made the following observations: "In the present case, the assessee is a limited liability partnership firm and its members are (i) Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. which owns 99% of the capital of the assessee, and (ii) Romell Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which is 100% owned by Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and owns 1% capital of the assessee. Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. had decided to acquire properties from Pooja Land & Premises Ltd. and other parties like Valentine Properties Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, payments were made by Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. to the sellers for these properties in the year 2010. Subsequently, Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. through one of its 100% subsidiaries....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act which are relevant for the adjudication of the issue at hand. Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act reads as follows: - "(b) any immovable property,- (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, if the amount of such excess is more than the higher of the following amounts, namely:- (i) the amount of fifty thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to five per cent of the consideration: Provided that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 56(2)(x) of the Act on the basis that the property was received prior to 01.04.2017. In this regard, much emphasis has been placed on the fact that the deed of conveyance and other formalities such as payment of stamp duty and handingover of the symbolic possession were completed on 31.03.2017. As per the assessee, the Registration Act, 1908 requires lodging the document for registration within four months from the date of execution. Accordingly, as per the assessee, the registration of the deed of conveyance was done in the month of April 2017, i.e., within the time permitted for registration. In order to decide this dispute, at this stage it is also relevant to determine the date from which the deed of conveyance is operative. The ....