ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. BHUPINDER PAL WALIA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3408/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 March 2018AY 2005-0617 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the registered sale deeds for smaller plots at a lower consideration, executed after the cancellation of the MOU due to legal disputes and a distress sale situation, should be considered for computing capital gains. The addition of the unexplained advance was also questioned.

What were the facts?

The assessee entered into an MOU for the sale of property for Rs. 3.44 crore, but later cancelled it due to legal disputes and sold smaller plots for Rs. 79,45,750. The Assessing Officer treated the original MOU value as the sale consideration and added an unexplained advance.

What were the issues?

Whether the capital gains should be computed on the value mentioned in the cancelled MOU or the actual sale consideration received from registered sale deeds, and whether the advance amount was unexplained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta
For Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia
Hearing: 15/03/2018

आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →