Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 526 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) - difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property - HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, if difference between consideration paid for purchase of property and guideline value of said property, then said difference should be treated as income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is a difference between guideline value of the property and consideration paid for purchase of said property, because the registration authority has levied an additional stamp duty while registering the property.AO has made addition being difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property. There is no error in the reasons given by the AO to make additions towards difference in value of property u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. Alternate plea of the assessee that, the difference between guideline value and consideration paid for property is less than the tolerance band fixed by virtue of amendment to Section 50C by the Finance Act, 2020 and thus, no addition can be made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) - We find that, the amendment brought to Section 50C by the Finance Act, 2018 and further amendment by Finance Act, 2020 is held to be retrospective in nature, as held in the case of Maria Fernades Cheryl [2021 (1) TMI 620 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Thus by virtue of said amendment to section 50C of the Act, if difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property is less than the tolerance band, then said difference cannot be considered as deemed consideration in the hands of the seller and consequently the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked in the hands of the buyer. Since, difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property in the present case is less than tolerance band, we are of the considered view that no addition can be made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) - Thus, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards difference in value of property u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) TDS u/s 194A - processing charges (upfront fee) paid for taking loan from bank - disallowance of certain expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS - AO was disallowed 30% of interest on other payment u/s. 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- We find that the tax auditor has quantified interest on other payments which is subjected to TDS to the relevant facts in its tax auditor report issued in Form No.3CD for the impugned assessment year. Assessee could not file any correctable evidence to justify his arguments that impugned payment does not comes under the preview of provisions of Section 194 - Although, assessee, tried to make out the case that part of said amount is processing charges paid to bank for availing loans. Since, the assessee could not justify the payments without deduction of tax with necessary evidence and also fails to obtain the certificate from the Auditor to the effect what was quantified under relevant Form No.3CD, includes processing fees paid to banks of which provisions of Section 194A has no application. We are of the considered view that, there is no merit in the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) to sustain addition made towards disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus , we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee.
|