TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed that the transaction of the sale of the properties is at the purchase price shown by the appellant. Provision of section 50C for that relevant year applied in the hands of the seller and not the buyer. In the present case the assessee is a buyer. Hence, he stated that income cannot be added in the hands of the assessee by invoking provision of section 50C - As examined that provision of section 56(1)(vii)(b) of the Act is not applicable as it applies w.e.f. 01.04.2014. DR also could not point out any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). We are also of the considered view that there is no provision of difference between stamp duty value as well as the transacted value can be added in the hands of the buyer - Appeal of the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material available on record, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts was a subject matter of the assessee s appeal in the preceding assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 1747/Del/2009, order dated 26.10.2010 wherein the relevant findings are given in para 5 as under: 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the material available on record. The only grievance of the assessee is regarding disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 2,50,538/- u/s 14A. This disallowance has been confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) on the basis of provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, do not see any merit in this ground of the departmental appeal. 7. As regards to the Second issue relating to the deletion of addition made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 69C of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that an identical issue was agitated by the department for the assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No. 1268/Del/2014 wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the department vide order dated 24.10.2017 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). 8. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR although supported the order of the AO but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 9. After considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
