MR. YASHESH N. WORAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 12(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6364/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 April 2019AY 2010-117 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10.68 lakhs on account of long-term capital gain was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that Section 50C should not be applied as the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was less than 10%.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a flat for Rs. 1.65 crores. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 10.68 lakhs on account of long-term capital gains. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of long-term capital gain on the sale of a flat was justified, particularly concerning the application of Section 50C and the threshold for stamp duty valuation differences.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri V.D Parmar, AR

AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)-28/IT-84/ACIT-17(3)/2013-14 vide order dated 4th July 2 2017. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-12(3), Mumbai (in short ‘ACIT/ITO/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 26.03.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 10.68 laks on account of long term capital gain on sale of flat at JVPD, Mumbai. For this assessee has raised the following three grounds: - “1. On facts and cicumstnaces of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of rs. 10,68,000/- on account of long term capital gain oin sale of flat at JVPD Mumbai.

2.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of ₹ 10,68,000/- on account of long term capital gain by applying provisions of sec 50C without appreciating the fact that difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation is less than 10% and hence needs to be ignored in view of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘A’ decision in the case of M/s Krishna Enterprises vs. Addl CIT dated 23.11.2016.

3. On the facts and cicumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) and ld. AO erred in adopting stap duty valuation without referring 3 the same to DVO for fair market valuation/ stamp duty valuation which is mandatory required to be referred us spedific ground No. 4 was raised before him in this regard.”

3.

Briefly stated facts are that the assessee sold Flat No. 201, Pushpanjali, plot No. 8 cross road 11 JVPD Scheme, Ville Parle for a sum of Rs. 1.65 crores vide agreement dated 08.04.2009. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that as per sale deed, the value adopted by

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →