SHRI MITHAILAL S. DALSINGAR SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal is hearing cross-appeals concerning the applicability of Section 50C on the sale/transfer of capital assets and the Stamp Duty Valuation of a Power of Attorney. The specific grounds of appeal relate to whether Section 50C applies when the Agreement for Sale is not registered.
What were the facts?
The assessee and the Revenue filed cross-appeals against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07. The appeals arose from an assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act.
What were the issues?
The key issues are the applicability of Section 50C to capital asset transfers where the sale agreement is unregistered, and the valuation of a Power of Attorney for stamp duty purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the tribunal”). Since common issues are involved, these cross appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. These appeals are directed against the appellate order dated 15th February, 2013 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 29, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2006-07, the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) arising from the assessment order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”).
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2525/Mum/2013 for assessment year 2006-07 in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) read as under:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of section 50C are applicable on sale/transfer of capital assets being plot No. 749 and 750. The appellant submits that the provisions of section 50C are not applicable as the Agreement for Sale was not registered.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in accepting the Stamp Duty Valuation of Power of Attorney registered with the Sub-
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026