TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10%. This was never disputed or controverted by the Revenue at any point of time. As per third proviso to Section 50C brought on statute w.e.f. 01.04.2019, the Tribunal on various occasions has applied the said proviso retrospectively as the difference is less than 10% in the actual value taken than the DVO s value. Therefore, ground no.2 is allowed. - ITA No.395/Ahd/2022 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2023 - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Nupur Shah, AR For the Revenue : Shri Suraj Bhan Garwal, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the addition of Rs.86,451/- out of total addition of Rs.3,43,830/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain as made by the Ld. AO 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not properly considering the submission made by the appellant wherein, it was contended that the property sold by the appellant company was litigated property and there were various litigations in the said property and it was not possible to sale the property at market rate and the necessary evidence in respect of the litigation are mentioned in the sale deed and hence, provisions of section 50C does not ap0ply in the case of appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the contention of the appellant in the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Subsequently, information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee and other persons sold an immovable property at Surat for sale consideration of Rs.9,49,89,978/- on 09.08.2011. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has shown its share of sale consideration of Rs.9,66,000/- whereas as per provisions of Section 50C of the Act the assessee was required to consider the Market Value (Jantri Value) of Rs.13,09,830/-. From the details filed in Income Tax Return, the Assessing Officer confirmed that the assessee has not considered the Jantri Value in computation of capital gain. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that as per Rule of Gujarat State regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale deed and hence, provisions of Section 50C of the Act does not apply in assessee s case. Ld. AR further submitted that if the difference between valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority or that declared by the assessee is less than 10%, the Assessing Officer should adopt the value as declared by the assessee as per various decisions pronounced by various Courts. The Ld. AR further submitted that sale value declared by the assessee in the return of income in respect of land at Rundh is Rs.9,49,89,978/- and the value as determined by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) is Rs.10,34,91,000/- which is approximately 8.95% higher but less than 10%. Hence, the value adopted by the assessee should have been accepted by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
