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

Jodhpur Estate, Murshidabad vs. DCIT, Cir-42, Murshidabad, Murshadabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 691/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 690 & 691/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Jodhpur Estate Dcit, Circle-42, Murshidabad 24/33/13, Joy Chand Road, Khagra- Vs. 742103, West Bengal Pan: Aajfj 4751 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K.M. Roy, Ar Respondent By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: Both The Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee By Challenging Two Separate Orders Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 15.06.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively By Raising Common Grounds Of Appeal For Both The Assessment Year Which Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

…mitted that amendment of increasing safe harbor limit from 5% to 10% was brought in by the Finance Act, 2020 had to be read retrospectively being clarificatory or curative in nature based on proposition of law laid down in Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs ITO (2021) 187 ITD 738 (Mum) and he prayed before the bench by applying the above proposition where difference valuation declared A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 and decided by DVO is less than 10% of declared value, no addition is warranted. He, therefore, prayed that the sale of transaction have been analysis to identify such cases where there is a difference of 10% or more o…

Jodhpur Estate, Khagra vs. DCIT, Cir-42, Murshidabad, Murshadabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 690/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 690 & 691/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Jodhpur Estate Dcit, Circle-42, Murshidabad 24/33/13, Joy Chand Road, Khagra- Vs. 742103, West Bengal Pan: Aajfj 4751 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K.M. Roy, Ar Respondent By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: Both The Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee By Challenging Two Separate Orders Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 15.06.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively By Raising Common Grounds Of Appeal For Both The Assessment Year Which Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

…mitted that amendment of increasing safe harbor limit from 5% to 10% was brought in by the Finance Act, 2020 had to be read retrospectively being clarificatory or curative in nature based on proposition of law laid down in Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs ITO (2021) 187 ITD 738 (Mum) and he prayed before the bench by applying the above proposition where difference valuation declared A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 and decided by DVO is less than 10% of declared value, no addition is warranted. He, therefore, prayed that the sale of transaction have been analysis to identify such cases where there is a difference of 10% or more o…

Shri Rajesh Srichand Uttamani, Nagpur vs. A.CIT, Circle-4, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 91/NAG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Kaumudi Patil, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…covers the assessee’s case as we are in assessment year 2013- 2014 only. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments in light of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahd.) and Maria Fernandez Cheryl vs. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.–Tribu.) holding that the legislature has inserted [1st and 2nd proviso(s) and [3rd proviso] respectively; to sec.50C(1) as curative measures which carry retrospective effect. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance challenging the learned lower authorities action making long term capital gains addition o…

Amsons Steel Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT Cir-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 970/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.970/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Amsons Steel Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(1) Plot No. A/16, Wagle Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Industrial Estate, Road Road, Mumbai-400020. No.8, Thane-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4716G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Bekal Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 06.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering Fair Market Value Of The Properties As On 30.05.2013 Determined By The District Valuation Officer-1, It Deptt, Mumbai-12 Vide His Report Dated 21.02.2019 As Against Stamp Duty Value Adopted By Learned Assessing Officer Even Through Your Appellant Sold At Prevailing Market Rate At Arm’S Length Principle. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Giving The Benefit Of Curative Amendment Inserted In Section 43 Ca By Finance Act, 2018 W.E.F. 01.04.2019 & Subsequently Finance Act, 2020 W.E.F.

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43C

…fore, needs to be given retrospective effect and would apply to that case i.e. assessment year 2015-16. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryle Vs. ITO (International Taxation) (2021) (123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738) (Mum) (AY. 2011-12) wherein similar view (retrospective operation of law) albeit that it relates to section 50C of the Act. According to Ld. AR, section 43CA and section 50C of the Act are pari materia provisions and therefore, the Tribunal in Maria Fernandes Cheryle (supra) holding that amendment in section 50C of the Act as retrospective is ev…

Alrameez Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 482/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 275Section 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…

Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rustom Fali Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.54/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Income Tax Officer International Taxation ……………. Appellant Ward–3(2)(1), Mumbai v/s Rustom Fali Mehta Ground Floor, Sea Side …………….Respondent Women Graduates Union Road 147, Middle Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 PAN – AROPM2280P C.O. no.24/Mum./2023 (Arising out of ITA no.54/Mum./2023) (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Rustom Fali Mehta Ground Floor, Sea Side ……………. Cross Objector Women Graduates Union Road (Original Responden…

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Macrotech Developers Ltd. (MDL) DCIT-7(3), 412, Floor-4, 17G, Room No.655, 6th Floor, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACL1490J Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 17.04.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:…

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Macrotech Developers Ltd. (MDL) DCIT-7(3), 412, Floor-4, 17G, Room No.655, 6th Floor, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACL1490J Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 17.04.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:…

Thiduvil Balakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Noncorp, Ward 4(5), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 963/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 963/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thiduvil Balakrishnan, Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.3, New No. 4, V. Income-Tax, 5Th Street, 4Th Cross, Central Circle -2(2), Seetharam Nagar, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 112. [Pan: Afmpb-5184-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 40Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)

…56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, we find that, the amendment 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 Fernades Cheryl vs ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum). 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…

Sai Bhargavnath Infra, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1332/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

…43CA first proviso where the tolerance margin 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 Vs ITO (2021) 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…

V.K. Developers, Pune vs. Assistant Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 923/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.923/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 V.K.Developers, The Acit, Circle-3, Pune. 1168/125, Gokhale Nagar, Vs Near Gopal Krishna Mandal, . Pune – 411016. Pan: Aaifv 7710 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 12.06.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir- 3,Pn/157/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 50C(1)

…assessment year 2016-17 only. 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…

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)

…could be given retrospective effect so as to confer benefit to the assessee in the instant case. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 187 ITD 738 wherein the third proviso inserted in Section 50C of the Act has been held to be retrospective in operation from 01/04/2003 onwards. Though this decision has been rendered in the context of Section 50C of the Act for a capital asset, the same analogy could be drawn for Section 43CA also for asset held as ‘stock in trade’. For the sake of convenie…

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)

…could be given retrospective effect so as to confer benefit to the assessee in the instant case. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 187 ITD 738 wherein the third proviso inserted in Section 50C of the Act has been held to be retrospective in operation from 01/04/2003 onwards. Though this decision has been rendered in the context of Section 50C of the Act for a capital asset, the same analogy could be drawn for Section 43CA also for asset held as ‘stock in trade’. For the sake of convenie…

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)

…could be given retrospective effect so as to confer benefit to the assessee in the instant case. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 187 ITD 738 wherein the third proviso inserted in Section 50C of the Act has been held to be retrospective in operation from 01/04/2003 onwards. Though this decision has been rendered in the context of Section 50C of the Act for a capital asset, the same analogy could be drawn for Section 43CA also for asset held as ‘stock in trade’. For the sake of convenie…

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)

…could be given retrospective effect so as to confer benefit to the assessee in the instant case. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 187 ITD 738 wherein the third proviso inserted in Section 50C of the Act has been held to be retrospective in operation from 01/04/2003 onwards. Though this decision has been rendered in the context of Section 50C of the Act for a capital asset, the same analogy could be drawn for Section 43CA also for asset held as ‘stock in trade’. For the sake of convenie…

Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 22/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.22/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 30.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAIPUR” BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.22/RPR/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt Ltd बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner of 11/146, Chikni Mandir, Malviya Income-tax, Vs. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Central Circle-1, Raipur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCN 1338 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Prafulla Pendse, CA अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : 30.07.2021 सुनव…

Pushpa Lachmandas Samtani, Mumbai vs. ITO, 17(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5736/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Nishant K. RuparelFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…o section 50C was inserted by the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2019 allows tolerance limit of 5%. The said tolerance limit was enhanced to 10% by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs. ITO reported as 187 ITD 738 (Mum.Trib.) has held that 3rd proviso would operate retrospectively from the date on which section 50C was introduced to the Act i.e. 01.04.2003. The ld. AR pointed that similar view was taken by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Amrapali Cinema Vs. ACIT 127 taxmann.com 376. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently de…

Nina Luthra, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Noida

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3861/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 69

…ave carefully considered the rival contentions and find that the introduction of the 3rd proviso to section 50C has been held by three different coordinate benches as retrospective in nature. The coordinate benches in Maria Fernandes Cherly v. ITO (IT )(2021) 187 ITD 738/ 123 Taxmann.com 252 /209 TTJ 850 /198 DTR 137/ 85 ITR 674 (Mum)(Trib), Chadra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs. DCIT 113 Taxmann.com 246 and Sandeep Patil Vs. ITO in ITA No. 924/Banglore/Del/2019 has held so. Therefore, we find that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, accordingly, we hold that as the difference between stamp duty valuati…