← 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

Protech Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward, 2(2), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 214/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Protech Packaging Pvt Ltd., 3A, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Patna Ground Floor, Pushpanjali Venkatesh, Budh Marg, Patna- 80000 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 1473 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/10147/2017-18 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 607 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Order Of Ld Cit(A) Was Passed On 23.6.2023 & The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed Within 60 Days, However, Due To Serious Illness Of The Accountant Who Was Entrusted To Take Steps In P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 56

that the assessee has re-valued the land as per valuation report and has taken fair market value of the land based on the circle rate. However, as per rule 11UA(2), the book value of the assets in the balance sheet is to be taken while computing FMV. Accordingly

Syed Rafat Zubair Rizvi, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Syed Zubair Rizvi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Kaiserbagh Avenue, Lucknow, (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Ajvps4151L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aleem Khan, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit Nfac, Dated 26.3.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 19.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because Appellant Has Filed Return Of Income On 19.08.2015 For Ay 2015-16 Vide Acknowledgment No.649289701140618 Showing Total Income Of Rs.1,10,51,960/- 2. Because Appellant Sold 14Flats, 2Shops & 2Lands In Assessment Year 2015-16 The Said Building Was Constructed In The Year 2005-06 As A Commercial Building Knows As Essaar Mall. But Due To Local Factors Assessee Failed To Sold His Premises & After Many Years Of Failure He Decided To Convert The Same Into Residential Building & The Flats Were Constructed In The Year 2013. Due To Blockage Of Fund & Non-Sale Of Flats Assessee Sold At The Lower Rate Approval Of Residential Construction Form The Up Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Was Also Obtained Before Converting The Commercial Construction To Residential. 3. Because An Addition Of Rs.87,46.596/- Is Made By Ld. Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Valuation Report Vide Letter F.No.1200To 1213/Avo/Itd/Lko/2017-18/872 Dated 19.03.2018 Which Was Sustained By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, Nfac

For Appellant: Sh. Aleem Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 43C

same or adjoining area. Also construction cost shall include the conversion of commercial construction to residential. Hence Construction cost is not justified. 5. Because circle rate is not always the true indicator of the market value of the property as the market value keeps on fluctuating at different times. Further ... action of the authorities in this regard cannot be justified. 7. Because the valuation by the stamp valuation authority is based on the circle rates. There circle rates adopt uniform rate for an entire locality, which inherently disregards peculiar features of a particular property. Even in a particular area