TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned Appellant Order, without properly appreciating and adjudicating the detailed written submissions and documentary evidences placed on record by the Appellant, thus, holding, that, the Sale/Transfer of the Property (Stock-in-Trade) took place in F.Y 2015-16, relevant to A.Y 2016-17, merely on the basis of the Registered Deed of Conveyance dated 16/05/2015 (Registered on 11/06/2015). 1.2 The Honourable CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Sale/Transfer transaction of the Property (Stock-in-Trade), stood concluded in F.Y 2013-14, relevant to A.Y 2014-15, pursuant to the Deed of Conveyance dated 28/12/2013, which constituted the primary and operative instrument, evidencing transfer of rights between the Parties, whereby: • Full Consideration was received from Buyer in F.Y 2013-14, relevant to A.Y 2014-15, and • Vacant and peaceful Possession was handed over to the Buyer in F.Y 2013-14, relevant to A.Y 2014-15, and • Substantial rights in the Property (Stock in Trade) stood irrevocably transferred to the Buyer in F.Y 2013-14, relevant to A.Y 2014-15, and • Business Profits Computed and Taxed in F.Y 2013-14, relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant date for determination of Stamp Duty Value ought to be 28/12/2013, being the date of Agreement/First Deed of Conveyance, when Consideration was fixed and received from Buyer, through banking channels, against the possession, being handed over to the Buyer. 3.2 The Honourable CIT(A) failed to apply Section 43CA(3), which recognises the date of Agreement, where Consideration or part thereof has been received by prescribed modes, as the determinative date for adoption of Stamp Duty Value. 3,3 The Appellant submits, that, the statutory framework, itself acknowledges, that, the transaction of Sale/Transfer of the Property (Stock in Trade), stood concluded and enforceable in F.Y 2013-14, relevant to A.Y 2014-15. 3.4 Accordingly, the impugned transaction, if, at all taxable, under Section 43CA, must be examined with reference to valuation as on 28/12/2013 (F.Y 2013-14, relevant to A.Y 2014-15) and not on the date of subsequent Registration, in F.Y 2015-16 relevant to A.Y 2016-17. 3.5 Therefore, the Appellant submits, that, the action of bringing the said transaction to Income Tax in A.Y. 2016-17, is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in La....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od satisfied. 4.4 The Honourable CIT(A), falled to apply, the settled principle, that, taxation proceedings are governed by the substance over form and that, incorrect citation of the Provision, cannot defeat, the substantive statutory right, available to the Tax Payers. 4.5 The Appellant submits, that, the impugned finding, based purely on the procedural misdescription/technical misdescription, has resulted, in the denial of the mandatory Statutory safeguard, intended to prevent, arbitrary adoption of the Stamp Duty Valuation and therefore, such impugned finding, is contrary to the settled principle and unsustainable in Law. Ground No. 5-Initiation of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 5.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the Case and in Law, the Honourable CIT (A) erred, in not addressing, the issue of the Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which was initiated by the Learned ITO - Ward 12(3) (1), Mumbai, as per his Assessment Order dated 07/12/2018, without considering the facts and submissions, available on the records. 5.2 The Appellant prays that, such initiating of Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mp-duty valuation of the property at Rs. 10,38,500/-, reduced by assessee's share in the cost of acquisition of land as on 23-12-2010 for Rs. 10,50,000/-. 7. The Assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A), who decided the issues against the assessee, affirming the finding of AO, with following observations: "CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7. Having carefully considered the assessment order, the grounds of appeal, the detailed written submissions, the oral submissions made during the video conference hearing, and the applicable legal provisions and judicial precedents, I am satisfied that the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 93,34,500/- to the appellant's income under Section 43CA is legally correct, factually justified, and based on sound reasoning. 7.2 The appellant's reliance on Section 47 of the Registration Act is misplaced. The Supreme Court has categorically held in Ram Saran Lall (Constitution Bench) and reiterated in Kanwar Raj Singh (2024) that Section 47 does not determine when a sale is complete; it only determines priority of registered documents. A sale of immovable property is complete only upon registration o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, the assessee has furnished, inter alia, the ledger account of the purchaser, M/s. Moss Realtors Pvt. Ltd., evidencing payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- in two instalments, namely Rs. 7,50,000/- on 07.04.2013 and the balance amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 28.12.2013. Thus, according to the assessee, the entire consideration stood paid and the transaction had been acted upon much prior to the subsequent registration of the conveyance deed on 11.06.2015. 10. In order to corroborate the aforesaid transaction, assessee also furnished bank statement of account maintained with Union Bank of India, having recorded therein the entries of aforesaid two payments. The assessee also got a certificate from the bank dated 29th June, 2026 establishing that such transactions of payments were actually taken place. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) both did not agree with the contentions of the assessee that the transaction had taken place in AY 2014-15. It is submitted by the assessee that the income from the said transaction being a business transaction was offered for tax in the AY 2014-15 following the consistent accounting principles and taxation practices and, therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olation for determining the point of transfer where the substantive ingredients of the transaction had already been completed. 14. We also find that in the case of ACIT vs. Vidhi Enterprises, Mumbai [2026] 3 TMI 627 (ITAT Mumbai), the Co-ordinate Bench, while dealing with a transaction concerning property constituting stock-in-trade of the assessee and the resultant income assessable under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession", considered the principles applicable to real-estate transactions and held that the year in which the consideration was received and possession was handed over was relevant for determining the year of taxation, and that the subsequent registration of the property would not, in the facts of that case, result in shifting the year of taxation to the year of registration. 15. The aforesaid judicial pronouncements, though rendered in the respective factual settings of those cases, are relevant to the controversy before us insofar as they recognise that the determination of the year of taxability cannot necessarily be made solely with reference to the subsequent date of registration, but has to be examined having regard to the substance of th....