2015 (7) TMI 1262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue determined for stamp duty purposes. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to assess the difference amount of ₹ 96.26 lakhs as income of the assessee. AO was not sure as to the section under which the said difference is assessable. Hence he has quoted both sec. 17(2)(iii) and sec. 28(iv) of the Act. We have noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has given proper reasoning that the above said difference cannot be assessed as income of the assessee under both the sections. During the course of hearing, the Ld D.R also could not controvert the reasoning given by Ld CIT(A). The provisions of sec. 56(2)(vii), which provide for assessing difference between the Stamp duty valuation and the sale consideration in the hands of the buyer, has been inserted by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 77; 96,26,528/- constitutes income in the hands of the assessee and accordingly assessed the same as income of the assessee u/s 17(2)(iii) /28(iv) of the Act. 3. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has been declaring income falling under the heads income form house property, income from business and income from other sources, i.e., the assessee did not receive/declare any salary income. The provisions of sec. 17(2)(iii) are applicable for computing income from salary. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the assessee was not an employee of the above said company and hence he was not receiving any salary form it. Hence there was no employer-employee relationship between the above said company and the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) also relied upon the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e facts of the instant case, since it was a case of purchase of property. He further submitted that the assessee has purchased the impugned property at the price agreed between the buyer and seller. He further submitted that the value determined by the Stamp duty authorities cannot be considered in the instant case, since the said authorities determine the value of property on the basis of ready reckoner rates prescribed by the State Government. Accordingly he submitted that the value determined by the Stamp authorities is only an estimate and the same could not have been adopted by the AO. 5. We have earlier noticed that the assessing officer has treated the difference between the agreed value and the value determined for stamp duty pur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X