9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y examining the factual aspects in its entirety and also noted the legal position as to the effect of guideline value fixed by the Government. The settled legal position is that the guideline value has been fixed by the Government for the purpose of computing the Stamp Duty payable on an instrument and the guideline value would not reflect the market value of the property. In support thereof, several decision has been referred. As pointed out, the Tribunal has rightly noted the legal position and considering the entire facts found that the additions made by the PCIT and the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - T.C.A.No.217 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2020 - Mr. Justice T.S. Siv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee based on a State Government guideline value which came into effect with effect from June 2017 ignoring the fact that the law as it stood on the date of purchase and the actual sale consideration paid by the assessee on the date of purchase and the actual sale consideration paid by the assessee on the date of purchase which are all undisputable facts and the revised guide line value cannot be adopted to the present assessment year especially when the same was prospective and not retrospective in operation? 2. We have elaborately heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant / Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent/assessee. 3. The assessment was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said provision will have no application to her case as 50% of the Sale consideration had already been paid and the assessee could not withdraw from the transaction and therefore, she should not be penalised. 4. On a reading of the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, dated 01.10.2018, we find that the Commissioner has not dealt with the aspects with regard to the argument that 'transfer' within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) had taken place as there has been part performance of the Contract of Sale. Nevertheless, the Commissioner interfered with the Assessment Order and directed the Assessing Officer to assess differential amount of ₹ 24,00,000/-. On appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal in our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
