← All Phrases

“circle rate”

Capital GainsSection 50CSection 50C478 judgments

The decision most relied on for circle rate is CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (159 ITR 71), cited in 133 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on circle rate

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.
159 ITR 71 · 1986 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran
429 ITR 97 · 2020 · High Court
39
citing judgments

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.

Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT
75 Taxmann.com 141 · 2016 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

The circle rate prevalent at the time of entering into an agreement is to be considered for the purpose of Section 50C, as amendments to this section have been held to be retrospectively applicable.

Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-15 (1), Hyderabad
78 Taxmann.com 264 · 2017 · Reported
24
citing judgments

If a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provides for a lower tax rate than Section 206AA, tax at source must be deducted at the lower DTAA rate, even if the non-resident deductee fails to provide their PAN. Section 206AA does not override the beneficial provisions of a DTAA.

Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. v. ACIT, Central Circle-6(1) Chennai
46 SOT 112 · 2014 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

When an assessee provides loans to its associated enterprise (AE) using its own funds (not borrowed funds), the arm's length interest rate for such inter-company loans should be determined by considering comparable interest rates like PLR, SBI short-term rate, or LIBOR plus a markup. This principle applies even if the funds were raised through sources like zero per cent optional convertible preferential shares.

Techbooks International (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Noida
63 Taxmann.com 114 · 2015 · High Court
22
citing judgments

The determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions involving debt requires consideration of both the amount on which interest should be charged and the arm's length rate for that interest. Guidelines are provided for computing the ALP of the international transaction of 'debt arising during the course of business.'

Joseph Mudaliar v. DCIT
130 Taxmann.com 250 · 2021 · Reported
18
citing judgments

The amendment to section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by inserting the third proviso through the Finance Act, 2018, is curative and applies retrospectively. This means the tolerance band for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value, introduced by this amendment, is applicable to earlier assessment years.

Judgments citing circle rate

Bimla, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-38(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 7973/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69

after due application of mind independently 5. Ld. CIT (A) observed the purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference of amount ... between circle rate and actual amount paid by the assessee to be treated as Income from Other Sources. Since the difference amount is exceeding Rs.50,000/-, he sustained the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and not u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Further he sustained

Late Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, Represented by 6 Legal Heirs, Tuticorin vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1018/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1018/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. K.Indira, Pcit-1 Shri K.Muthuvel, Madurai. Shri Selvakumaran, Shri M.K.Balaji बनाम/ Shri K.Ragupathy, Shri K.Sudhakar Vs. All L/Hs Of Late Shri Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, 15, Melanavaladivillai, Arumuganeri, Tuticorin-628 202. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bctpk-6952-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

facts and in circumstances of the case in view of the subsequent reduction in the circle rates, there by vitiating the findings in relation there to. 11. The PCIT failed to appreciate that there was complete scrutiny of facts referred to in the revision order while passing the re-assessment

Hakikat Saraf, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-2(5), Kanpur

ITA 247/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary, Member A.Y. 2014-15 Hakikat Saraf, Income Tax Officer-2(5), 124/B/168, Govind Nagar, Vs. Kanpur Kanpur-208006 Pan:Afpps4419H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Kanpur Dated 24.01.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.47,33,000/- Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Held, That The Difference Between The Actual Gross Consideration Rs. 1,09,34,000/- & The Stamp Value Estimated By The Stamp Valuation Authorities, Subsequently Reduced By The District Valuation Officer At Rs. 1,56,67,600/- Is Deemed Income Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

same cannot be said to be incorrect, unreasonable or untrue. 07. Because the determination of the Fair Market Value on the basis of Circle Rates, adopted by the District Authorities is of no credence, in as much as, the Circle Rates are applied for the purposes of collection of revenue/Stamp ... simple terms what a property would fetch, if sold in the open market as against any fixed or estimated price based on circle rate, the estimate made by the District Valuation Officer is entirely unreliable and totally misplaced, the addition made be deleted. 09. Because the CIT(A) as well

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Ardee Infrasturcture Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3584/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 1 (1), Vs. Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 16Th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaaca7927K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Amisha Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 28.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,80,39,139/- Made On Account Of Edc

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 43C

relevant facts are, AO observed that the sales of 136 flats in the complex were made at rates below the circle rate and, therefore, the difference between the actual sale consideration and the circle rate in a sum of Rs. 6,29,30,146/- had to be brought ... findings and observations of the AO in this regard are at pages 6 to 16 of the assessment order in para 5.2 therein. The circle rate chart was not readily available during the course of assessment proceedings with the assessee 9 and the assessment which were to get time barred