TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the valuation made by the stamp authority was as on the date of the execution of the development agreement. Secondly and more importantly, the stamp valuation of ₹ 4.63 crores was for a larger area of 7644 sq. meters where the assessee had assigned the development rights only with respect to 3872 sq. meters. No evidence has been produced by the Revenue at any stage that the assessee actually received the value which was adopted by the stamp valuation authority. Even the development agreement clearly mention the area and the assessee is not the owner of the TDR, thus, cannot be saddled with the value adopted by the stamp duty purposes as the assessee is only the owner of 3872 sq.mts. for which he received the consideration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty for a consideration of ₹ 2.51 crores (rounded off). This was done after obtaining necessary NOC under Section 269UL of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the competent authority. This MOU however, could not be converted into a formal development agreement till September, 2004. At the time of execution of the agreement, the stamp duty authority assessed the value of the property for the purpose of stamp duty collection at ₹ 4,63,73,500/. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 50C the Act and computed capital gain on the basis of stamp duty valuation of the property in question. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal in part. In relation to the dispute on hand, the commissioner accepted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onditions. The stamp duty authorities stamped / assessed the value at ₹ 4,63,73,500/. The Assessing Officer invoked section 50C of the Act on the basis of valuation made by the stamp duty authorities. The claim of the assessee was that the fair market value should have been taken which has been accepted by the Department u/s 269UL(3) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Meghraj Vaid 114 TTJ 841(Jodh.) and National Thermal Power Corporation 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India 187 ITR 688 (SC). 2.2 If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From the record, it can thus be seen that there were two significant factors why the CIT(A) and the Tribunal did not adopt the valuation of the stamp authority for the purpose of collecting capital gain tax in the hands of the assessee. Firstly, there was a gap of nearly 3 years between the date of execution of the MOU and the execution of a formal development agreement. Obviously, the valuation made by the stamp authority was as on the date of the execution of the development agreement. Secondly and more importantly, the stamp valuation of ₹ 4.63 crores was for a larger area of 7644 sq. meters where the assessee had assigned the development rights only with respect to 3872 sq. meters. 6. Under the circumstances, we do not find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
