Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO

187 ITD 738Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#1975 most cited

What is Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO authority for?

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO · Section 50C · Section 50C(1) third proviso · retrospective application · tolerance band · 10% margin · stamp duty value · sale consideration · curative and declaratory · Section 43CA pari materia

Also reported as

159 Taxmann.com 1587

Sections most often in play

Section 50CSection 40A(2)(b)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 115USection 14ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80absection 70(2)section 54esection 80msection 10(15)section 10(33)section 50c(1)section 14a(1)section 54ecsafe harboursection 36(1)(viii)

Judgments citing Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3135/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…mendment brought to section 50C by the Finance Act, 2018 and further amendment by Finance Act, 2020 is held to be retrospective in nature, as held by ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738. We, therefore of the considered view that by virtue of said amendment to section 50C of the Act, if difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property is less than the tolerance band, then said difference cannot be considered as deemed consideration in the hands of the seller and consequently the provisions of sec…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI vs. GAURAV INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

For Appellant: Shri Kshitiji Kasi ViswanathFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43C

…n of 10% has been held to be applicable even for the prior assessment years. However, in this decision, reliance was placed on another decision of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738 (Mum) which relates to section 50C of the Act. It was contended that section 43CA and section 50C of the Act are pari materia provisions and therefore, holding of retrospective application of section 50C is even applicable making retrospective application to section 43CA of the Act as well. The Id. A.R was unable to place on record before us any…

DCIT 42 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR TRILOKNATH GOYAL, MUMBAI

Accordingly\nwe see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) who has deleted the\naddition made by the AO under section 43CA of the Act.\n16.\nIn result, appeal filed by the revenue i...

ITA 4421/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 250Section 43CSection 66Section 68Section 69C

…10% has been held to be applicable even for the\nprior assessment years. However, in this decision, reliance was placed\non another decision of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes\nCheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 123 taxmann.com\n252/187 ITD 738 (Mum) which relates to section 50C of the Act. It was\ncontended that section 43CA and section 50C of the Act are pari materia\nprovisions and therefore, holding of retrospective application of section\n50C is even applicable making retrospective application to section 43CA\nof the Act as well. The Id. A.R was unable to place on record before us\…

SAI ESSEN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

ITA 821/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sai Essen Developers, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Abc Classic G Block, Midc, Thermex Chowk, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Abrfs7781C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is A Recalled Matter. Vide Order Dated 23.06.2025 In M.A. No.75/Pun/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Filed Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.821/Pun/2024 Dated 19.06.2024 (Appeal Filed By The Assessee) Was Recalled To Adjudicate The Issue Afresh. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") It Be Held That The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ("Pcit") Has Erred In Holding That Order Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 80I

…section 43CA is retrospective in nature, although it is inserted by Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2019. In support of this contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of C. Maria Fernandes vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mumbai) wherein it was held that the tolerance margins of 10% carries retrospective effect being curative 6 in nature. Apart from above decision, Ld. AR also relied on the decision passed by Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Sai Bhargavnath Infra vs. ACIT, ITA No.1332/PUN/2019 order dated 17.08.2022 wherein it was held that the intent of t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 1283/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…n of 10% has been held to be applicable even for the prior assessment years. However, in this decision, reliance was placed on another decision of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738 (Mum) which relates to section 50C of the Act. It was contended that section 43CA and section 50C of the Act are pari materia provisions and therefore, holding of 12 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. retrospective application of section 50C is even applicable making retrospective applicatio…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1273/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…n of 10% has been held to be applicable even for the prior assessment years. However, in this decision, reliance was placed on another decision of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738 (Mum) which relates to section 50C of the Act. It was contended that section 43CA and section 50C of the Act are pari materia provisions and therefore, holding of 12 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. retrospective application of section 50C is even applicable making retrospective applicatio…

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1173/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…10% has been held to be\napplicable even for the prior assessment years. However, in this\ndecision, reliance was placed on another decision of Bombay Tribunal\nin the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)\n[2021] 123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738 (Mum) which relates to\nsection 50C of the Act. It was contended that section 43CA and section\n50C of the Act are pari materia provisions and therefore, holding of\nretrospective application of section 50C is even applicable making\nretrospective application to section 43CA of the Act as well. The Id. A.R\nwas unable to place on record before us…

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 1172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…n of 10% has been held to be applicable even for the prior assessment years. However, in this decision, reliance was placed on another decision of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738 (Mum) which relates to section 50C of the Act. It was contended that section 43CA and section 50C of the Act are pari materia provisions and therefore, holding of 12 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. retrospective application of section 50C is even applicable making retrospective applicatio…

M/S OM SHRINIWAS DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ITO WARED-6(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1345/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S.Om Shriniwas Developers, V The Income Tax Officer, Off No.2 & 3, Vastusadan S Ward-6(3), Pune. Bldg, 743, Guruwar Peth, Pune – 411042. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfo7491G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Smt. N C Shilpa – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 43C

…/PUN/2019 has held as under : “4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments as the legislature has incorporated similar tolerance margin(s) of 5 and 10% in section 50C(1), third proviso by the very Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f 01.04.2021. Case law [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs. ITO holds the same as having retrospective effect since curative in nature. We wish to clarify the only difference between section 43CA and section 50C is that the former is applicable in case of transfer of assets other than capital assets whereas the latter provision comes into play in case of transfer of a capi…

PAHLAJMAL PARTOMAL KHATRI HUF,AMRAVATI vs. I.T.O., WARD 4, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 145/NAG/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale

…the safer zone / bracket of 10% as amended by the Finance Act, 2020, w.e.f. 01/04/2021, which is having retrospective effect being curative in nature, as determined by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in C. Maria Fernandes v/s ITO, [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.), which has duly and respectfully been followed by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in case of one of the co–owners titled as Harish Pehlajmal Khatri (HUF) v/s ITO, ITA no.384/Nag./2022, vide order dated 26/03/2024. Thus, the appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed by deleting the addition under consideration. 3…

DHANA-SHREE DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT 27 MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1771/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 43C

…ils, which has not been disputed by the Revenue,it is evident that in the sale transactions at Sr. No.1 to 5 in the table above, the difference in sale consideration and stamp duty valueis less than 10%. In the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO(IT) [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mumbai - Trib.), cited on behalf of the 5 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Assessee, Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has, in the context of Section 50C of the Act, held that the amendment providing the tolerance band of 10% is retrospective in nature and relates back to the date of insertion of statutory provision into the Act. Identical view was tak…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

…ssee placed reliance, in this regard, on the following decisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) HDFC Bank Ltd. 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is h…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

…essee placed reliance, in this regard, on the following decisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value o…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

ITA 2597/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

…placed reliance, in this regard, on the following \ndecisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to \nsection 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature:\n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum)\n\ni. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum)\n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol)\n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del)\n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2049/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…Assessee placed reliance, in this regard, on the following decisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22.3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the valu…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2047/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

…e placed reliance, in this regard, on the following \ndecisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to \nsection 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature: \ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n79 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2046/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…ssee placed reliance, in this regard, on the following decisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1890/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

…ssee placed reliance, in this regard, on the following decisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the val…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4983/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

…essee placed reliance, in this regard, on the following\ndecisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to\nsection 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective\nin nature:\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum)\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587\n(Mum)\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185\n(Kol)\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del)\n\n\n78\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21\n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of\nRs.47,1…

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2862/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoca

…ssee placed reliance, in this regard, on the following decisions of Co-ordinate benches wherein it is held that third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 78 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (187 ITD 738) — Cited in 58 Judgments | BharatTax