Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO

187 ITD 738Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#1974 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 366,339 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

DCIT - 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporartion Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2861/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoc

…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) i i. 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,…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2609/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…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…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2326/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh

…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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2093/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

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) 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.47,14,67,5…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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 val…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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 val…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

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) 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.47,14,67,550/- the va…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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 val…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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 val…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…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) 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.47,14,67,5…

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

…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) i. 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,…

Hbs View Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

…| आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2246/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, CC – 7(3), Mumbai MANGALPRABHAT GUMANMAL LODHA Vs 412, 17G Vardhman Chamber Cawasji Patel Street Fort Mumbai - 400001 [PAN: AABPL6198F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Niraj Seth, A/R Revenue by : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Anilkumar Jagdishraj Seth, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 3378/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth, 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Flat No. 1201, Jeevan Satya Co-Op. Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Housing Society, 15Th Road, Plot No. Mumbai-400012. 411, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aobps 8150 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2018-19 ACIT, Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth, 506, 5th floor, Piramal Flat No. 1201, Jeevan Satya Co-op. Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Housing Society, 15th Road, Plot No. Mumbai-400012. 411, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. PAN NO. AOBPS 8150 E Appellant Respondent CO No. 137/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 3378/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth, ACIT, Flat No. 1201, Jeevan Satya Co- 506, 5th floor, Piramal Chamber, Vs. op. Ho…

Meridian Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. A-DCIT, Circle- 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2220/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, CA
Section 148Section 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 ld. A.R was unable to place on record before us any…

Narain Lal Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 744/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…levant year - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee] While deciding the above case, Hon'ble bench relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of M/s Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738 (Mum. Trib.), wherein the issue has been discussed in detail. Relevant extracts of decision are as under: Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Special provision for computation of full value consideration (Safe harbour) - Assessment year 2011- 12 - Whether amendment in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third proviso ther…

Eknath Dhondiba Kurade, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-12, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 574/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

…of 10% has substituted the earlier 5% range by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which carries only prospective effect. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments in light of this tribunal’s decision in C. Maria Fernandes vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.) having rejected the very stand in sec.50C addition which is indeed para materia to sec.43CA of the Act since the only difference is that 3 ITA.No.574/PUN./2024 the former gets invoked in case of capital asset whereas sec.43CA is attracted when the corresponding asset forms part of the stock-in-trade. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehem…

Mahesh Ramkrishna Bhingare, Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Or Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1 Range-1, Nagpur, Saraf Chamber, Income Tax Office, Saraf Chambers, Sadar

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 224/NAG/2023[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 May 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Duragkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…10% in sec.50C(1) 3rd proviso substituting 5% by the Finance Act, 2020 is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 whereas the impugned assessment year herein is 2014-2015. I find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments in light of C. Maria Fernandes vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.) holding the foregoing tolerance margin as carrying retrospective effect. I delete the impugned addition made u/sec.56(2)(vii) in very terms since falling within the statutory tolerance margin of 10%. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.05.2024. [SATBEER SIN…

Akshay Ajay Rathi, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Amravati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 71/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri R.B. AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.71/NAG./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2016-2017 Akshay Ajay Rathi, C/o. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saroj Talkies Building, 4, Amravati Saroj Chowk, Amravati – vs. 444 601 PAN AADHH8136F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.B. Atal For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : 1. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the National Faceless Ap…

Harish Pahalajmal Khatri, HUF, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Amravati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 384/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri R.B. AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.384/NAG./2022 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2015-2016 Harish Pahalajmal Khatri The Income Tax Officer, Ward- HUF, C/o Saraswati 2, Amravati Hosiery, Busyland Complex, vs. Nandgaon Peth, Amravati – 444 901 PAN AADHH8136F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.B. Atal For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : 1. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises agains…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai vs. Neepa Real Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1508/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Neepa Real Estates Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., 12Th Floor, Hallmark Central Circle -6(1), Room No. 1905, Business Plaza, Vs. 19Th Floor, Sang Dnyaneshwar Marg, Air India Building, Near Gurunanak Hospital, Nariman Point, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaacn1884C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 43C

…n is to be made and relied upon the order passed by the co-ordinate 14 CO No.56/M/2023 M/s. Neepa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Bench of the Tribunal in cases viz. Sai Bhargavanath Infra vs. ACIT (2022) 197 ITD 496 (Pune-Trib.), Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO (2021) 187 ITD 738 (Mum-Trib.) & Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (supra). 16. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Sai Bhargavanath Infra vs. ACIT (supra) held that first proviso to section 43CA inserted by Finance Act, 2020 with effect from 01.04.2021 is applicable retrospectively and thus where difference recorded between sale value of flats s…