← 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

Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2780/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Amarjeet Kaur, Vs Acit, C/O L.N. Nangalya & Co., Circle-46(1), 101 & 105, S-524, Neelkanth New Delhi. Complex, Shakarpur, Delhi. Pan: Aaipk4730F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ashok Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd February, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-16, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 31St July, 2012 Declaring Total Income At Rs.7,49,01,810/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Claimed Capital Gain On Sale Of Her Undivided 12.5% Share Of 921.06 Sq. Yard. Of Land In Property No.11B, Jungpura, New Delhi – 110014 Which Was Sold For Rs.74 Lacs To Her Son Mr. Aniljit Singh, Whereas Mr. Aniljit Singh Has Purchased The Undivided 25% Share Of The Above Said Property From His Uncle At Rs.2,40,00,000/-. According To The Assessing Officer, Since Both Are Part Of The Same Property, The Rate At Which It Is Sold By The Assessee Is Under Valued. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs.45.50Lakhs Being The Difference Between The Value Of 12.5% Share At Rs.1.20 Crore & The Sale Value Of Rs.74.50 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

back side flat of the building. This residential flat was sold by the assessee to her son, Mr. Aniljit Singh at prevailing circle rate at the time of sale which comes to Rs. 74.50 Lac. Referring to the copy of government circle rate at the time of sale ... this portion to become the owner of the entire property. 3.1 It was accordingly submitted that the assessee has sold the property at prevailing circle rate prescribed by the competent authority. The portion is back portion of the property and, therefore, the same cannot be compared with the entire