“full value of consideration”

Capital GainsSection 48Section 48587 judgments

The decision most relied on for full value of consideration is CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (66 ITR 622), cited in 82 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on full value of consideration

CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.

66 ITR 622 · 1967 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The 'full value of consideration' for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or its predecessor, Section 12B of the 1922 Act), means the actual price bargained for and received or accrued by the parties. It does not refer to the market value or any notional value of the asset transferred.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)

123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT

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. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh

309 ITR 233 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The full value of consideration for computing capital gains under Section 48 refers to the amount stated in the sale deed and cannot be substituted by the market value or a valuation by the DVO under Section 55A, unless there is evidence that the assessee actually received a consideration in excess of the stated amount.

CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.

87 ITR 407 · 1973 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The "full value of the consideration" for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or Section 12B(2) of the 1922 Act), means the price actually bargained for and agreed to by the parties, not the market value of the asset transferred. In a sale transaction involving a price, the market value of the consideration is not relevant.

Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT

161 ITD 627 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

Dharmashibhai Sonani holds that if a statutory proviso is declaratory and curative, intended to remedy unintended consequences of a main provision, it should be given retrospective effect. This principle applies when determining the effective date of such provisos, including the third proviso to Section 50C(1).

CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd.

155 ITR 711 · 1985 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Legal fictions and deeming provisions are created for definite purposes and must be limited strictly to that purpose, not extended beyond their legitimate field or the explicit mandate of the section. This principle requires strict interpretation of such provisions.

CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal

190 ITR 56 · 1991 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments made by an assessee to release property from an encumbrance or settle disputes, which are essential for a sale transaction to materialize, are allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act for computing capital gains. Such expenditure either reduces the full value of consideration or is deductible from it.

Atul G. Puranik v. ITO

132 ITD 499 · 2011 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a deeming provision, applies only to the transfer of "land or building or both" and therefore does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights.

Judgments citing full value of consideration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

suit his requirements in order to gain minimum tax on his profits by inflating his costs. As such, the basis for determination of full value of consideration by the Assessing Officer based on the letter of the developer cannot be appropriate. No doubt at the relevant period, no provision ... considered opinion that the guidance value of the land or the guidance value of the building would be appropriate mode to determine the full value of consideration in the case of a transfer where consideration for the & CO 2/Bang/2022 Page 26 of 27 transfer of a capital asset

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Bioworth India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by

Section 133(6)Section 37

transfer. In AO's opinion irrespective of the consideration actually bargained by the parties, for the purposes of assessing capital gains the full value of consideration should have been the 'book value" of shareiJçpis proposition is however not supported by language expressly employed by the Legislature in Section ... date of sale. After Page 22 of 27 considering the language employed in the Act, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'full value of consideration' did not mean the market value of the asset transferred but the price bargained for by the parties. The Court further explained that expression

Noshir Darabshaw Talati, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1516/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45

agricultural land. Even otherwise, the assessee in the return of income had computed the income from capital gains as under:— Full Value of Consideration 1,01,00,000 Cost of acquisition after indexation 4,72,572 Balance 96,27,428 Deduction u/s 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G 96,27,428 54GA Taxable Capital Gains

Smt/ Pawan M Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7852/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair,Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 54Section 54F

added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, it was observed that assessee has declared full value of consideration, in its return of income, as Rs. 23,72,161. It was submitted by the assessee that she has received Rs. 15,16,161 on sale of gold ... consideration for sale of residential flat was declared as Rs. 8,57,000 instead of Rs. 85,70,000 and accordingly the full value of consideration on transfer of two long-term capital asset was disclosed in the return

M/S Pranjee Properties Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1438/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Pranjee Properties Pvt Ltd Vs Dcit 10(3)(2), Mumbai 3060, B-Wing, Oberoi Garden Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 Pan : Aadcp8950C Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 43C

valuation made by the State Government authority thereby taking into consideration the difference amount to be the deemed income of the assessee as full value of consideration. The assessee, on the other hand, relied upon the provisions of sub section (3) of section 43CA wherein the date of agreement should

ACIT, Circle-1, Vellore vs. M/S. Brownland Properties, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 3315/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3315/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. The Asst. Commissioner- M/S.Brownland Properties, Of Income Tax, No.84/2, Arni Road, Circle-1, Kosapet, Vellore. Vellore. [Pan: Aajfb 7669 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 194BSection 43C

perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The provisions of Sec.43CA of the Act, deals with full value of consideration to be adopted for the purpose of sale of immovable property, if such immovable property is in the nature of stock in trade ... property is higher than the actual consideration, then, the guideline value for the purpose of payment of stamp duty should be the full value of consideration. The assessee is in real estate business and formed residential and commercial plots and said plots are stock in trade for the purpose

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Shah, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

transfer of 35% share in land during the relevant previous year by substituting the actual sale consideration received by the Assessee with the full value of consideration determined by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Act. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that ... Valuation Authority for determining the stamp duty. Thus, taking value of land as INR 4,18,61,000/- the Assessing Officer arrived at full value of consideration for 35% share in land at INR 1,46,51,350/- and brought to tax capital gains of INR 94,51,744 (after

Ashok Rasiklal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1268/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysuru vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited, Mysuru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2551/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 288Section 35ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 48Section 49Section 50B

present AY 2014-15. Hence, the Assessee did not consider the entire slump sale consideration of Rs.110 Crore, as full value of consideration received/or accrued on transfer. The Assessee submitted that the remaining sum will be offered to tax in the year in which the Assessee receives the said ... year relevant to AY 2014-15, the entire consideration for the slum sale, viz., Rs.110 crores ought to have been adopted as the full value of consideration received The assessee's contention is that the remaining Rs.10,00,00,000/- is payable upon fulfilling of certain conditions and therefore

Rakesh Fatechand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Natioanl E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 214/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

justified in upholding the action of the ld. AO in adopting the value determined by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) as full value of consideration while computing the capital gains in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available ... said property at Rs.82,98,500/-. The assessee had duly declared capital gains of Rs.53,413/- in his income tax returns taking full value of consideration of the property at Rs.24,00,000/-. The ld. AO chose to substitute the consideration figure by adopting the consideration fixed for stamp duty

Rajesh R. Sawlani, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1498/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

officer exceeds the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority, the value so adopted by such authority is to be taken as the full value of consideration received as a result of the transfer. As noticed by us hereinabove, the assessee had specifically vide his letter dated 30.11.2016 objected

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

there would have perhaps been no question of capital gains. One way of looking at the problem could be to say that the full value of consideration in this case was not the apparent consideration, i.e., Rs. 2,58,672 but Rs. 2,24,168 (Rs. 2,58,672 minus ... Legislature while using the expression 'full value of consideration' has contemplated both additions to as well as deductions from the apparent value. What it means is the real and effective consideration. That apart, so far as clause (i) of section 48 is concerned, the expression used by the Legislature

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

accepted this submission of the assessee as declared in the return of income. 2.4 In the return, the assessee had shown full value of consideration received as Rs.2,17,91,298/- from which she deducted the indexed cost of acquistion of Rs.1,51,798/- to arrive at the long term

Mukesh K Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-29(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4902/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4902/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit Circle-29(2), Mukesh K Shah Huf R. No. 202, C-10, 2Nd B-12, Chandra Niwas, Above बिधम/ Floor, Pratayaksha Lijjat Papad, Mulund (West), Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400 080. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaghs3814L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Radha Halbe, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 10.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-40, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment U/S 143(3) For Ay 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

property. The assessee had given the following facts giving the erroneous working by the AO:- Particulars As per Return Reworked by AO Full Value of Consideration (basement 18,00,000/- of Sujeer House) (Appellant is a 25% share holder in the property having registered value Rs.72 ... Full Value of Consideration (godown at 1,35,000/- Sujeer House) Total Consideration 19,35,000/- 20,81,250/- 11 I.T.A. No. 4902/Mum/2019 Mukesh K. Shah HUF Cost of Acquisition (2,44,360/-) (2,44,360/-) Short Term Capital Gain 16,90,640/- 18,36,890/- Difference to be taxed

Leila Advani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

M/S. Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1078/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

Finance Act, 2002, has inserted a new section 50C in the Income-tax Act to make a special provision for determining the full value of consideration in cases of transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion

M/S C Bhansali Developers Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward 15 (1)92), Mumbai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 7562/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri R. A. Dhyani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Khushiram Jodhawani, Adv

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(3)Section 50C

addition made by the AO by asserting that in respect to transfer of capital asset being land and building in determining the full value of consideration the provisions of section 50C will be applicable in defiance to the provisions contained in section 45(3). 3. BECAUSE CITIA) erred ... amount recorded in the books of accounts of the company/firm shall be deemed to ITA No.7562/Mum/2019 | 3 be the full value of consideration receive on such transfer of capital asset. The assessee further submitted that the provision of section 50C is not applicable to such kind of transfer to which

Shairul Shailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1039/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar (D.R)For Respondent: Shri Harsh Kapadia

Section 132Section 153ASection 50CSection 50C(1)

same, the value and assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part

Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1038/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar (D.R)For Respondent: Shri Harsh Kapadia

Section 132Section 153ASection 50CSection 50C(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4876/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN