9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 30/09/2021. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. During the alleged assessment year, the assessee registered a property from M/s Lotus Griha Nirman Pvt Ltd, covering approximately 6,180 sq. ft. in the proposed commercial building "Lous Link Square," for a total consideration of Rs. 8,19,00,000/-. The assessee booked the property by paying Rs. 3,50,00,000/- through banking channels, and a letter of allotment was issued in favor of the assessee on 30/03/2010.At the time of registration, there was a difference of Rs. 9,04,37,500/- between the set forth value and the stamp duty value. The issue was ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued as at that date. With respect to the valuation difference of Rs. 81,19,625/-, the Ld. AR further contended that, as this difference is less than 10%, the assessee is entitled to the benefit under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, thereby necessitating the deletion of the differential value confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted achart which is extracted below: (A (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Unit No. Area (Built up Sq.mts.) (A) Purchase value (B) Ready Reckoner Rate per sq.mt. as on the date of allotment i.e. 30-03-2010 (C) Stamp duty Value on the date of allotment i.e. 30-03-2010 (AXC) Fair Market Value as per Department Valuation Report Lower of (D) and (E) as per section 50C(3) (F) Difference (F-B) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable retrospectively by various decisions of coordinate bench of this Tribunal as under: - i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer- Mumbai ITAT ii. Aaeshka Riddhi Realty, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)- NFAC - ITO - 19(1)- Mumbai ITAT iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT ITA- Kolkata ITAT 7.5. He also place reliance on following decisions in support of his arguments: - i. Sulochana Saijan Modi vs. ITO, Mumbi- Mumbai ITAT ii. Gurukrupa Developers D N Nagar vs. Pr. CIT- 32, Mumbai- Mumbai ITAT iii. Ms. Shilpa Gautam vs. The Income Tax Officer- Mumbai ITAT" 5. The Ld.AR also submitted that amendment to section 56(2)(x) of the Act brought in Finance Act, 2020 of increasing tolerance limit from 5% to 10% with effect from 01/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
