CIT v. R.Sugantha Ravindran

352 ITR 488High Court2013#7874 most cited

What is CIT v. R.Sugantha Ravindran authority for?

Amendments to Section 50C, including the word 'assessable', apply only to transactions undertaken on or after October 1, 2009, not to earlier transactions.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. R. Sugantha Ravindran · Section 50C · amendment applicability date · October 1 2009 · transfer of capital assets · value adopted or assessed · CBDT Circular No.5/2010

Judgments citing CIT v. R.Sugantha Ravindran

Devendra K Cheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6012/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…effect from 1st October, 2009 and will accordingly apply in relation to transactions undertaken on or after such date.” (emphasis supplied by us) 3.9. Moreover, we find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. R Sugantha Ravindran reported in 352 ITR 488 had held that the amendment brought in Section 50C of the Act from 01/10/2009 cannot be made applicable for transactions carried out prior to 01/10/2009. The Hon’ble Madras High Court had also placed 9 Shri Devendra K Chedda reliance on the CBDT Circular No.5/2010 dated 03/06/2010 while holding the aforesaid view. Hence, it could be safely conc…

Murtuza Ali Khan Mohammed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -9(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 160/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Respondent: Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.)
Section 144Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…as the corresponding clinching statutory expression “or assessable” in section 50C(1) came to be inserted in the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009 than having any retrospective operation. Hon’ble Madras High Court decision CIT Vs. R.Sugantha Ravindran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Mad) holds that foregoing amendment carries prospective effect only. We thus adopt strict interpretation as per hon’ble apex court recent and constitutional effect decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) and hold that the legislative expression “or assessable” used in 1st proviso has to be read in conjunctio…

Mohd Mukhtar Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -9(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 159/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Respondent: Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.)
Section 144Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…as the corresponding clinching statutory expression “or assessable” in section 50C(1) came to be inserted in the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009 than having any retrospective operation. Hon’ble Madras High Court decision CIT Vs. R.Sugantha Ravindran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Mad) holds that foregoing amendment carries prospective effect only. We thus adopt strict interpretation as per hon’ble apex court recent and constitutional effect decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) and hold that the legislative expression “or assessable” used in 1st proviso has to be read in conjunctio…

Fatima Khatoon, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -9(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 158/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Respondent: Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.)
Section 144Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…as the corresponding clinching statutory expression “or assessable” in section 50C(1) came to be inserted in the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009 than having any retrospective operation. Hon’ble Madras High Court decision CIT Vs. R.Sugantha Ravindran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Mad) holds that foregoing amendment carries prospective effect only. We thus adopt strict interpretation as per hon’ble apex court recent and constitutional effect decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) and hold that the legislative expression “or assessable” used in 1st proviso has to be read in conjunctio…

S.Bhuvaneswari, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2944/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2944/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mrs. S.Bhuvaneswari Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Hallmark Towers, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, 550 (Old No.136) Ttk Road, Corporate Circle-1(2) Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai. Pan: Aadpb 1269K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. R.Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 43CSection 50C

…The proviso has the effect of giving an entirely different treatment to the exceptions covered by it. Therefore, it cannot be said that it supplies any obvious omission to the main section. 12. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugantha Ravindran 352 ITR 488 had the occasion to consider whether the insertion of the words or assessable’ in section 50C through the Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f 01.10.2009, can have application with respect to earlier periods viz. A.Y. 2005-06. At paragraph 10 the High Court has held that the word ‘or assessable’ included in section 50C w.e.f. 01.10.2009 is neither a clarific…

Seth Brothers, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly

ITA 3395/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…“w.e.f. 01.10.2009 (the transfer was effected on 03.1.2008 i.e. much prior to 01.10.2009).” In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Samantha Ravindran 352 ITR 488 wherein, it has been held that the value of property transferred prior to 01.10.2009 cannot be computed under amended provisions, which came into effect on 01.10.2009 (the word “or assessable” was inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2009). Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances as explained above and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras Hig…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Biomed Hitech Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 327/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.327/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Biomed Hitech Industries Ltd, Income Tax, Fagun Mansion, No.475, Corporate Circle I (2) Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan Aaacb 1953G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjeev Aditya, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

…urther clarified that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act have no application in respect of transaction which are not registered with the registration authorities. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Sugantha Ravindran, (2013) 352 ITR 488 had also clarified the position as under:- ‘’8.We have perused the above circular. It is stated therein that the scope of the provisions does not include transaction which are not registered with stamp duty valuation authority and executed through agreement to sell or power of attorney. Consequently, it is made clear therein that the amendments…

Arvind Ramniklal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4236/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4236/Mum/2013 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Arvind Ramniklal Mehta The Income Tax Offficer, 197-2, Chadda Menson, Ward 17(2)(1), Vs. Wadala Station, Wadala, 216, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400 031 Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 216 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. AADPM2553R अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Su…

D.Prasan Chand, Chennai vs. ITO Ncr 5(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2235/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 04.12.2017
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, D/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2235/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) Shri D.Prasan Chand, The Income Tax officer, Vs. 6, Thambu Naicken NCR-5(4), Chennai-6. st.,Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079. PAN AAGPP 9190 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.K.Balasubramanian,Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : 04.12.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 22.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Dat…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Subhadra Ramamoorthy, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for 12

ITA 1629/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvoocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 269USection 50C

…as to take correct indexed cost of such charges. Main grievance raised by the assessee was on invocation of Section 50C of the Act. As per the assessees by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Sugantha Ravindran, 352 ITR 488, when a transfer was effected through an unregistered sale agreement, Section 50C of the Act could not be applied, prior to amendment to Section 50C of the Act which came into effect only on 01.10.2009. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering 6. the submissions of the assessees, directed the ld. Assessing Officer to consider…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Tas Ramamurthy, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for 12

ITA 1628/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvoocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 269USection 50C

…as to take correct indexed cost of such charges. Main grievance raised by the assessee was on invocation of Section 50C of the Act. As per the assessees by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Sugantha Ravindran, 352 ITR 488, when a transfer was effected through an unregistered sale agreement, Section 50C of the Act could not be applied, prior to amendment to Section 50C of the Act which came into effect only on 01.10.2009. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering 6. the submissions of the assessees, directed the ld. Assessing Officer to consider…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surajkund Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3421/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 50C

…not applicable to the 3 ITA No.3421/Del./2011 Surajkund Properties Pvt. Ltd. facts of the present appeal. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt Ltd 320 ITR 345 (Mad.) and CIT vs R. Sugantha Ravindran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Chennai). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is in the business of resorts, hotels, real estate, building and land developers. The assessee company sold two land properties i.e. one at Theme Park and another at Global Business City, both loc…

Krishna Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5402/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Krishna Enterprises, Vs. Addl. Cit – 12(1), Mumbai 10Th 103, Floor, Maker Chamber No.Vi, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk2860J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…le is before 01/10/2009, which is the date on which the circular becomes applicable. 8. Our attention was invited to the CBDT circular No. 5/2010 dated 03/06/2010, 324 ITR 319 and the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sugantha Ravindran 2013 352 ITR 488 (Mad). 9. On the other hand, learned DR Shri A. Ramachandran relied on the order of the lower authorities and contended that the AO altered the sale consideration value of the property, which was subject to transfer, based on report offered from District Valuation Officer. Thus, it is established that the market value determined of the said prope…

ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Atul Pravinchandra Parekh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito-15(3)(1), Shri Atul Pravinchandra Room No.106, Parekh बनाम/ Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, 303, Shobha Apartment, 3Rd Vs. Tardeo Road, Floor, S.No. Road, Mumbai-400007 Tambe Nagar, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Ambpp5491R

Section 143(1)Section 69B

…essable”, thus, the amendments were made applicable w.e.f. 01st October, 2009. Vide Circular No. 5 of 2010 dated 03/06/2010, it was made clear that the amendment made by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 is prospective in nature, (CIT vs R. Sugantha Ravindaran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Mad.)). The object and the purpose of section 50C is to explore the undisclosed income of capital gains, received by the assessee is taxed. It is also noted that reading section 40A 6 Shri Atul Pravinchandra Prakash (as introduced by the U.P. Act 11 of 1969) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with Rule 340A of the U.P. Stamp Rules 1942, it was made…

CIT v. R.Sugantha Ravindran (352 ITR 488) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax