TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 896
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....49(1), dated 30/01/2025 passed against the assessment order by MUM-C-(441)(1), u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the "Act"), dated 22.09.2022 for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: i. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in relying on the preliminary valuation report of the DVO In adjudicating the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact the preliminary valuation report cannot be regarded as final report of the DVO ii. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the variation in the stamp duty valuation and value adopted by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sky Forest, Mumbai in the year 2014 for a consideration of Rs. 8,01,61,000/-. Sale agreement for this was registered on 27.09.2019 for which the stamp duty value on the date of registration was Rs. 11,32,76,000/-. Assessee disputed this stamp duty valuation before the ld. Assessing Officer and the matter was referred to ld. DVO at the request of the assessee. Since the assessment was getting time barred, ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment pending receipt of report from ld. DVO, by making an addition of Rs. 3,31,15,000/- u/s. 56(2)(x), being difference between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value. The impugned assessment was completed by order dated 22.09.2022. 3.1. Subsequent to this report, by the ld. DVO was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a settled position of law that the tolerance limit was increased from 5% to 10% in section 56(2)(x) by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which is held to be applicable retrospectively, it being curative in nature and therefore would apply retrospectively from AY 2018-19. 3.5. Reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents which dealt with similar issues: a. Maria Fernandes Cheryl ITA No. 4850/Mum/2019 A.Y 11-12 Dated 15.01.2021 b. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra) c. CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 45 (Del) 3.6. In the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra), it was held that amendment made by introducing proviso for tolerance band of 5% ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k by the assessee. 6.1. Fact of the matter is that assessee started the interior work of the flat purchased by it, details of which are already discussed above while adjudication the appeal by the Revenue. Assessee undertook the interior work post registration of the sale agreement for which it had taken the possession. Assessee claimed depreciation on this property at the rate of 5% in its rectified return. However, ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the same as according to him, the property was under passive use for carrying out interior work. Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance so made, though ld. CIT(A) made an observation that if possession is taken then, the depreciation should be granted. He took an adverse view on account of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound no.3, assessee has challenged the addition made towards disallowance of rent paid of Rs. 20,000/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)(b). Fact relating to this issue is that assessee has being paying yearly rent of Rs. 1 lakh to its Director, Shri Lakhamshi Malshi Shah. In the year under consideration, a supplementary agreement was entered into to increase the payment of rent from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1,20,000/- as claimed by the assessee. This incremental rent of Rs. 20,000/- was disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer by treating it as excess rent paid vis-à-vis the old agreement which was confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 8.1. There is nothing brought on record to demonstrate that the rent paid has been in excess as required u/s.....