CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran

429 ITR 97High Court2020#3042 most cited

What is CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran authority for?

The first and second provisos to Section 50C(1) are retrospective in nature and applicable from the inception of the main section. The third proviso to Section 50C(1) is also retrospective and applies from the same date as the main provision.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Vummudi Amarendran · Section 50C · Section 43CA · retrospective · first proviso · second proviso · third proviso · stamp duty value · circle rate

Also reported as

120 Taxmann.com 171

Sections most often in play

Section 50CSection 43CASection 250Section 143(3)Section 147Section 1961Section 142(1)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 50c(1)safe harboursection 50c(2)section 43casection 43csection 23(5)section 56(2)(x)(b)waiver of loanfull value of considerationcircle ratestamp duty value

Judgments citing CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran

Swati Atul Kadakia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleswati Atul Kadakia V. Income Tax Officer – 16(3)(1) Room No. 447 1302, Vasant Aradhana Tower Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpk8725D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…needs to be checked whether the consideration for the flat on the date of allotment is higher than the Stamp Duty value as on that date. In the event the answer is in affirmative, the transaction will be held to be good. Refer CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran (2020) 429 ITR 97 /(2021) 277 Taxman 243 (Mad.) Page No. | 5 Swati Atul Kadakia (HC) the Court held that as regards, Stamp valuation, amendment with effect from 1-4-2017. Statutory amendment is made to remove an undue hardship- Amendment retrospective. Thus, the value as per stamp duty acts as on date of allotment and fixation of consideration was much lower than t…

Axia Infoserve LLP, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3142/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…ptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to Section 50C(1) comes into force Page No. | 18 Axia Infoserve…

Dr.A.Thirumagal, Ph.D, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

ITA 1221/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1221/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dr.A.Thirumagal, Ph.D., V. The Asst. Commissioner Of Old No.84, New No.488, Income Tax, Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-I, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli.

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

…viso inserted to sec.50C of the Act, the AO cannot make any addition. Although, the provision inserted to sec.50C(1) of the Act, subsequent to impugned assessment year, but the jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran (2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad), had considered the first proviso and held that the amendment to sec.50C(1) of the Act, is curative in nature and applicable from the date of insertion to sec.50C of the Act. The AO after considering relevant submissions has rightly accepted the claim of the assessee and thus, there is no scope for PCIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s.263 of th…

M/S. Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1078/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 50C(1)

…ed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171/429 ITR 97]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same date on w…

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 12/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…ed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171/429 ITR 97]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same date on w…

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 11/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…ed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171/429 ITR 97]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same date on w…

Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Ciecle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1954/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…ed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171/429 ITR 97]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same date on w…

M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle- 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…ed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171/429 ITR 97]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same date on w…

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1527/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2015-16 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Pri. Commissioner Of Urja Sadan, Nana Varachha Road, Vs Income-Tax-1, Kapodara Char Rasta, Surat, Ahmedabad Guajrat-395006 Pan : Aabcd 8912 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2015-16 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Pri. Commissioner of Urja Sadan, Nana Varachha Road, Vs Income-tax-1, Kapodara Char Rasta, Surat, Ahmedabad Guajrat-395006 PAN : AABCD 8912 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Responde…

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Shri Vinay Grandhi, Chennai

ITA 948/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी महावीर िसंह, उपा34 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ9वाल ,लेखा सद< के सम4। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.948/Chny/2020 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO Shri Vinay Gandhi Non Corporate Ward-11(1), Legal Heir of (Late) Mythri Gandhi बनाम/ Chennai. Flat No.2C, Robins Park, Vs. New No.20, Karpagam Avenue, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 014. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACK-2422-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent…

Bellandur Chikkagurappa Jayaramreddy, Bengaluru vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234BSection 50C

…ement to be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. This amendment by insertion of proviso seeks to relieve the assessee from undue hardship. This was considered by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran, 429 ITR 97 (Mad) wherein it was held as under:- “11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51/255 Taxman 293/404 ITR 654, considered the question as to whether the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 to Proviso of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is curative in nature and it has to given retrospective operation from th…

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

…) by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f 01.04.2017 seeks to relieve assessee 20 from undue hardship and thus, should be taken to be effective from date when main provisions introduced. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Vummudi Amarendran (2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad) has considered an identical issue and held that proviso to section 50C(1) should be taken to be effective from date when provison was introduced. The ITAT., Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani Vs. ACIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 141 (Ahd) had considered an identical issue and held that once statutory amendment is made to remo…

Poonam Haresh Budhrani, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54E

…ed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171/429 ITR 97]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same date on w…

Tawfiqur Rahman, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-30(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 120/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 120/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tawfiqur Rahman......................................…………………………………………………………..Appellant 39A, Old Ballygunge 2Nd Land, Kolkata – 700 019. [Pan: Amhpr 8245 H] Vs Ito, Ward – 30(3), Kolkata...................……………………………………………….............Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Ca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayantakhanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 03, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 27, 2021 Order

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…ith effect from 01.04.2017 was not applicable in assessee’s case involving assessment year 2013-14. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assesse has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs VummudiAmarendran reported in 429 ITR 97 wherein it was held that the amendment made in section 50C by inserting 1stProviso with effect from 01.04.2017 is applicable retrospectively with effect from the date on which section 50C was introduced. Keeping in view that this decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, we hold that the benefit of the 1st Proviso to section 50C is available to 5…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-5, Jaipur vs. Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 558/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

…ptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to Section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same dat…

Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-5, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 475/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

…ptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to Section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same dat…

M/S. Amrapali Cinema, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amrapali Cinema, Acit, C/O-Sh. Anil Kumar Goel, Vs Circle-I, Income Tax Office, 90, Ram Nagar, Hapur Road, Near Bhainsali Ground, Meerut. Delhi Road, Meerut. Pan-Aabfa7846D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca. Respondent By Sh. Ashok Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2021

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to Section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same dat…

DCIT Corporate Circle I(1), Chennai vs. A V A Cholayil Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 783/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ava Cholayil Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., 1583, J. Block, 6Th Avenue, 15Th Main Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Chennai 600 034. Road, Chennai 600 102. [Pan: Aaica2178A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 28.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Giving Relief To The Assessee By Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.44,22,711/- For Ay 2013-14 & Rs.45,56,529/- For Ay 2014-15 Claimed Under Section 36( 1 )(Iii) When The Assessee Company Has Not Produced Any Evidence Regarding The Transaction For Validating The Claim That It Arose

For Appellant: Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए ’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. AVA Cholayil Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., 1583, J. Block, 6th Avenue, 15th Main Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Chennai 600 034. Road, Chennai 600 102. [PAN: AAICA2178A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department by : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT Assessee by :…

Smt. Cheryl Maria Fernandes, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4850/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2021AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 48Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…ptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to Section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same dat…