“date of transfer”

Capital GainsSection 2(47)Section 2(47)965 judgments

The decision most relied on for date of transfer is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on date of transfer

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

398 ITR 531 · 2017 · Supreme Court

228

citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

260 ITR 491 · 2003 · High Court

150

citing judgments

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT

365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court

122

citing judgments

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana

340 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property by way of sale is legally valid only through a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance. Unregistered instruments like agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney, or wills do not transfer title or create an interest in the property.

CIT v. T.K. Dayalu

202 Taxmann 531 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

In a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), capital gains arise for chargeability to tax when the complete control over the property is passed to the developer, with the date of such transfer of control being relevant for determining the assessment year. This includes considerations of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd.

111 Taxmann.com 94 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Prior to the incorporation of the proviso to section 43CA(1) with effect from 1st April 2019, section 43CA did not envisage any limit regarding the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee for the transfer of immovable property that was stock-in-trade.

CIT v. Ashaland Corporation

133 ITR 55 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

Income from the sale of immovable property, including any 'on-money' component, is taxable only when the sale is complete, marked by the execution and registration of the sale deed and/or transfer of possession to the buyer.

CIT v. R.L. Sood

245 ITR 727 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

Exemption under Section 54 for capital gains on a residential property is available even if the sale deed is not registered within the stipulated time, provided a substantial amount of consideration is paid, or the delay in completion/registration is beyond the assessee's control.

Judgments citing date of transfer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Meserss T.C. Buildcon Private Limited, Raipur

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 173/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reasons provided it is stated that the assessee has transferred 5,30,410 shares during year under consideration whose market value on the date of transfer was Rs. 7.63 crores (rounded off). This transfer had taken place in favour of M/s Nerka Chemicals Pvt Ltd without consideration under transfer deed

Chandhok Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 200/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 200/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chandhok Cold Storage Private Limited Ph No.100/28, Bilaspur Road, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcc8354P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 224Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such "dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than ... amount set apart for payment of dividends on preferences shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur vs. Shri Rekhchand Jain, Raipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue partly allowed, in terms of our

ITA 73/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Areret Ater F./Ita No.73/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Years: 2015-2016)

Section 2(47)Section 250(4)Section 54Section 54BSection 68

sold the land at Sejbahaar on 31.03.2015 thereby proving that 7. 2 ITA No.73/RPR/2020 the land was purchased either before or on the date of transfer of land at Sejbahaar in contravention to section 54 B? Whether on the facts of the cases ... subsection (1) of section 54-B deduction is allowable only when the assessee has, within a period of two years, after the date of transfer of capital asset, have purchased any other land subject to the same is being used for the agricultural purpose. From the above details of purchases

ACIT Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lifestyle Probuild Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3552/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: AO; that valuation report dated 15.03.2012 prepared by the Chartered Accountant as per rule 11UA

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than ... amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

details of the property being agreed to be transferred thereby, i.e., the shares in Manko: - the number of shares - the share price - the date of transfer (b) Non-reference to the internal audit report or its findings, vital for share valuation; (c) Complete silence and non-explanation ... difference between the transfer consideration of a property, moveable or immovable, i.e., with reference to its fair market value (FMV) as on the date of transfer, as income from other sources of the recipient of the property. The provision, on the statute for long, has since

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

Bhavesh Shantilal Gohil, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 175/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhavesh Shantilal Gohil A-1304, Gohil Mansion, Irani Wadi, Shantilal Mody X Road No. 2, Asian Bakary Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Abkpg2287Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 35(1)(2) R. No. 2, C-12, Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50C

stamp valuation 8 Bhavesh Shantilal Gohil authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) The value so adopted or assessed [or assessable] by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1)(1), Surat vs. Manish Sumatilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 382/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 54F

years after transfer of original capital asset subject to not owning more than one residential property other than new asset, on the date of transfer of original asset. But the assessee purchased four properties, therefore, deduction under Section 54F of the Act is not allowable. The Assessing Officer asked

The Bombay Samachar Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1460/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)

assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub- section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed

Sh. Kunal Dar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5358/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return, Claiming Deduction Of Rs.52,54,619/- Out Of The Ltcg Earned By The Appellant. The Cit(A) Was Incorrect To Confirm The Said Disallowance Without Proper Appreciation Of The Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 541Section 54FSection 54F(1)

appellant. Page 3 of 7 Kunal Dar vs. ITO 7.1 Thus the appellant owns more than one residential house on the date of transfer of the original asset and also the income from both the flats has been offered to tax under income from house property. Therefore as stated

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2132/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM M/s

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM M/s

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur vs. Aviral Finance Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ito-4(1) Aviral Finance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Ground Floor, Nalghar Chowk, Raipur – 492 001 [Pan: Aabcg 2701 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

members of Golechha Family. From the bank statement, it is noticed that there is a meagre amount of cash balance and before the date of transfer to the assessee company the said amount was deposited. The company is involved in the business of providing consulting services. Gurudev Fintrade

Sbm Chemicals & Instruments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 534/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54E

offered to tax Long Term Capital Gains of INR 13,83,15,000/- computed as under: Schedule – 6 : Long Term Capital Gain Date of Transfer : 09/01/2013 Amount (INR) Sale Consideration 14,33,15,000 Capital Gains 14,33,15,000 Less Exemption under Section 54EC 50,00,000 Taxable Capital

M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 753/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2012-13 M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito N-18, First Floor, Ward-15(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017 Pan Aabcl9997R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 68

only. The details of purchase of these lands by the above persons are as under:- Sl. No. Description of land Land holding Investment Date of transfer made 1. Khasra 325 3.553 hectare 15.07.2013 2. Khasra 326 12080 hectare 15,00,000 24.07.2013 3. Khasra 329 0,3300 hectare

Smt. Anjali Bhadoo, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

assessee was required to purchase a residential house property either one year before, or within two years after the date of transfer of original asset; or within a period of three years after the date he was required to construct a residential house, The Central Board of Direct Taxes ... window of three years period from December 2t 2011 till December 21, 2014 to construct a house property, calculated from the date of transfer of the original asset. The appellant has claimed deduction on the amount invested till the due date of filing of return under section

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4589/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sugam Thomas Josh, CIT- DR

Section 2Section 43(1)

that separate considerations have been determined and paid in respect of transfer of brands and transfer of undertaking we find that on the date of transfer of brand, its value in the books of transferor company was NIL The assessee has determined the brand value at Rs.7.24 crores

Ajay Chouhan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 219/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.219/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajay Chouhan Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income First Floor, Chouhan Estate Tax-1(1) Supela, Bhilai-490 023 32/32 Bunglow, Bhailai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Acfpc 0549K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06 /09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 02.06.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Exemption Of Rs.47,90,164 Claimed U/S 54B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961. 2) The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 3) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Alter Or Omit All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal In The Interest Of Justice.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 548Section 54B

should be used by the individual or his parents for agricultural purpose at least for a period of 2 years immediately preceding the date of transfer in case of HUF the land should be used by any member of HUF”. In this regard the observations of the AO made

Nearbuy Pte.. Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) Circle 3(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1607/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)

arriving at the negative value of shares of (-) Rs.630.29, while the value of shares has to be determined as on the date of transfer of shares, which was 30-11-2017. Accordingly, the AO held that the negative value of (-) Rs.630.29 per share is not acceptable. He further noticed that ... shares have been sold on 30.11.2017. As per the provisions of Rule 11UAA, the shares have to be value as on the date of transfer only. He submitted that the assessee has placed reliance on the Valuation report obtained by it under DCF method, but the said valuation report

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

Against the value of Rs. 28,73,000/- adopted by the stamp valuation authorities, the DVO has determined the FMV on the date of transfer at Rs. 20,55,000/-. This itself shows that there is wide variation between the two values. Further, the value adopted