Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT

161 ITD 627Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#2408 most cited

What is Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT authority for?

Dharmashibhai Sonani holds that if a statutory proviso is declaratory and curative, intended to remedy unintended consequences of a main provision, it should be given retrospective effect. This principle applies when determining the effective date of such provisos, including the third proviso to Section 50C(1).

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT · Section 50C · Section 50C(1) third proviso · retrospective effect · declaratory proviso · curative proviso · unintended consequences · stamp duty value · full value of consideration · capital gains · ITAT Ahmedabad

Also reported as

209 TTJ 850

Sections most often in play

Section 50CSection 1961Section 147Section 43CASection 143(3)Section 250Section 148Section 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 50c(1)safe harboursection 50c(2)section 23(5)section 43csection 43cawaiver of loanfull value of considerationcircle ratesection 211stamp duty value

Judgments citing Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Bimladevi Subhakaran Agarwal, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 130/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 130/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit Smt. Bimladevi बनाम/ Subhankaran Agarwal Circle-5(2), Vs. 7, Adyapak Mitramandal Ahmedabad Society, Bhd. Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-06 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acy Pa9 795 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: 26/07/2019
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

…and circumstances in the light of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. S. Venkat Reddy 32 taxamn 324 (2013) (Hyderabad Trib.) as referred in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and the decision in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT 161 ITD 627 (Ahmedabad Trib.), the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/08/2019 (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 07/08/2019 TANMAYआदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज"व / Revenue 2.…

Metal Extrusion India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.163/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Metal Extrusion India Ltd. The Addl. Cit Vs. 36A, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines Circle – 1 Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm 3410 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 50CSection 60C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘SMC’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k Before : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.163/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke M/s. Metal Extrusion India Ltd. The Addl. CIT Vs. 36A, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines Circle – 1 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3410 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls @Assessee by :Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date o…

Amul Research & Development Association, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Anand

ITA 3295/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2019AY 2011-12
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 48Section 50C

…. We find that so far as the relevant date, for valuation of the asset as per stamp duty rates, is concerned, the issue in now settled in principle, in favour of the assessee, by a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani Vs. ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] wherein the Tribunal has, inter alia, observed as follows:- “4. The fundamental purpose of introducing section 50C was to counter suppression of sale consideration on sale of immovable properties, and this section was introduced in the light of widespread belief that sale transactions of land and building are often undervalued resulting i…

White Rose Holdings (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7395/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 White Rose Holdings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor C/O. Mandhania & Associates Vs. 6-A Pil Court Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan Aaacw0478K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55A

…hat the valuation as on the date of execution of MOI date 18.12.2003 be adopted, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions; (1)Sanjeev Lal [2014]365 ITR 389(SC), (2)Modipon Ltd [2015] 154 ITD 369 (Delhi Tribunal), (3)Dharmsibhai Soni [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) and (4)Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari (ITA No. 639/Vizag/2013 ( Vishakhapatnam Tribunal) 15 ITNo.7395/Mum/2017 8. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the authorities below. The ld DR further submits that the assessee has raised certain new grounds of appeal which were not raised before lower aut…

Shri Pinkesh B. Balajiwala, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3036/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3036/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Pinkesh B. Balajiwala, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 161, Old Gidc, Near Sutex Bank, Income-Tax, Katargam Surat Pan:Agcpb8995R Circle -3(2) Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 43CSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…is to be adopted for the purpose of section 50C(1) of the Act. Though the proviso is inserted with effect from 01.04.2017 but same is applicable retrospective as held by Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad tribunal in the case of Dharamsibhai Sonani v ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 627(Ahmedabad) wherein it has been held that the proviso to section 50C has a retrospective effect from 01.04.2003, hence, it was urged upon us that said proviso is applicable to the present case. The ld. A.R. further submitted that this decision has been followed by division bench of Ahmedabad tribunal in the case of Hansaben Bhaulabhai Parajapati v…

Dhara Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2213/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 50CSection 54F

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2012-13 DHARA SINGH ITO, WARD 1(2), C/O RUPINDER KUMAR Vs. GHAZIABAD AGGARWAL, UTTAR PRADESH ADVOCATE, AB-1A/22, SECTOR-51, NOIDA -201301 (PAN: CZJPS0155A) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv.) Department by : Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), 2, Noida on 23.1.2018 in relation to…

M/S. Jai Laxmi Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are partly allowed

ITA 5578/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Jai Laxmi Developers (P) Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Central Circle-21, 78-B, Sector-2, Dda Flats, New Delhi Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Iii, Delhi-96 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 263Section 50C

…In the present case as the consideration has been passed on the same date on which the agreement of sale has been entered into, therefore, stamp duty rate as on the date of agreement shall be applied. We draw support from the order of the coordinate bench in 161 ITD 627 wherein, it has been held that the proviso to section 50C inserted by Finance Act 2016 w.e.f 01.04.2017 applies retrospectively. Therefore, we direct ld AO to take stamp value of the property as on the date of the agreement. In view of this ground NO. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed by holding that assets sold by the asse…

Sarita Sangam Society, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes for in the terms indicated above

ITA 3562/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2018AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…artmental Valuation Officer’s valuation. However, suffice to add, while examining this aspect of the matter, the Assessing Officer will take into account binding judicial precedents on the issue, including in the case of Dharmashi Bhai Sonani Vs. ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)]. We leave it that for the time being. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes for in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of May, 2018. Ms. Madhumita Roy Pramod Kumar Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Dated: 16th May, 2018. PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The responde…