(1) Section 50C is a special provision for determining the full consideration for the transfer of immovable property, whether land or buildings, or both; Addition with reference to provisions u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) – difference in stamp value minus selling costs – The appraiser received only a 99-year lease – equivalent to the purchase of real estate p. Very good judgment in the question of where the property was transferred by agreement for the sale and for FMV Ao determination refer the matter to DO and the DVO prepare an appraisal report based on the valuation of the property in the registered area. Factors relevant to the attractiveness of section 50C: (3) If the value determined in accordance with subsection (2) exceeds the value assumed or assessed or taxable by the stamp appraiser referred to in subsection (1), the value so assumed or assessed or taxable by that authority is deemed to be the total value of the consideration received or accumulated as a result of the transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) where, If the transaction falls below 50C, will section 56(2) also become attractive for such a transaction? (b) the value so accepted, estimated or valued by the stamp valuation authority in accordance with paragraph 1 has not been challenged or referred to before any other authority, court or high court; (5) The `acquisition cost` is different from the `total value of the sale price`, so that the reference to the determination of the acquisition cost is distinct from the reference to the DVO under Article 50C. In those circumstances, it was for the appraiser to refer to the DVO in order to determine the value of the property sold. The Department`s assertion that the reference to DVO was not made because the assessor deliberately raised the objection before the assessor in order to ensure that the procedure was prescribed is, in our view, unacceptable. In addition, the Commissioner (Appeals) also learned at the first stage of the appeal that he had asked the assessing officer to have the property appraised by the DVO and that he had then proceeded in accordance with the law. In S. Muthuraja v/s CIT, [2014] 369 ITR 483 (Mad.), the Madras High Court held that if the appraiser objects to the valuation of stamp duty as the selling price during the appraisal process, the valuation agent is required to contact the DVO to determine the value of the property in accordance with section 50C(2) of the Act. The other decisions cited by the officer also express a similar view.

Indeed, the Honourable High Court of Calcutta in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v/s CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal.), went further and concluded that the DPO`s assessment under section 50C of the Act is taken into account in order to avoid miscarriages of justice. It was decided that if Parliament has taken care to provide adequate mechanisms to treat taxpayers fairly, there is no reason not to apply the mechanisms provided by Parliament and to deny their benefit. The Hon`ble Court held that even in a case where the assessor does not request referral of the case to the DVO, the assessor, in the exercise of a quasi-judicial function, is required to act fairly by giving the assessor the opportunity to follow the statutory route of having the assessment carried out by the DVO. Calculation of the capital gain – Applicability of § 50C – Scope of the reservation modified in § 50C – Sale of real estate belonging to nine co-owners and resulting and applicable capital gain. (4) The reference to DVO is without exception in the event of a dispute of the total value of the counterparty and stamp valuation authorities at the instigation of the A.O. or the Assessee. This is an appeal by the assessor against the decision of 24.05.2019 of CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. At the time of the hearing, counsel for the assessor argued that he did not wish to rely on ground 2 raised by the tax authorities concerning the challenge to the validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (`the Act`). In addition, this article was amended by the Finance Act 2018. A third reservation has been added to paragraph 1, which reads as follows: (iv) If the valuation made by the stamp duty collection authorities is lower than the selling price indicated by the appraiser in the bill of sale, section 50C cannot be invoked; Calculation of capital gains – sale of real estate and assessed by the Stamp Assessment Authority – on the basis of the land thus sold, which did not fall within the competence of fixed assets, namely agricultural land and a permit. Similar. Section 50C cannot be used to determine undisclosed investments in the case of the buyer on the basis of the valuation by the stamp valuation authorities (CIT v.

Chandni Bhuchar (2010) 323 ITR 510/191 Taxman 142 (Punj. & Har.). ITO v. Chandrakant R. patel 131 ITD 1 (Ahd.) is a good decision on the applicability of sections 50C, 55A and 142A of the Income Tax Act. There were also discussions on the jurisdiction of the AO, DVO and the scope of these sections. 8. CHARGE AND DISCHARGE – Under section 50C, if the valuation of stamp duty on property is greater than the apparent purpose of the sale as stated in the instrument of transfer, the burden of proof that the fair value of the property is less than the assessment by the VAS rests with the appraiser, who can reasonably discharge this burden by providing the required documentation to the appraisal agent. such as appraisal by a chartered appraiser. Subsequently, the burden of proof is on the appraiser to prove that the documents submitted by the appraiser regarding the market value of the property are incorrect or unreliable.

(Ravi Kant v. ITO(2007)110 TTJ Delhi 297). (a) the appraiser asserts before an appraiser that the value assumed, assessed or taxable by the valuation authority stamped in accordance with subsection (1) exceeds the fair value of the property at the time of the transfer; 8. I have carefully considered the arguments of the rivals and note that, in this case, the deed of sale was executed by the appraiser who sold two stores to Cavalry Road on 10.08.2009. The deed of sale is valid from the date it was signed and there are no agreements on the period of sale under the deed of sale that have been deferred. Due to evaluation disputes, registration could only be completed on 26.06.2010. This does not postpone the date of the transfer of ownership to the purchaser from the date of sale. According to section 47 of the Indian Registration Act of 1908, the sale by the appraiser to the buyer would take place from 10.08.2009. The transfer by sale of the property therefore took place on 10.8.2009. With respect to the second appeal, the court noted that “this case is a classic example of the functioning of the state apparatus, in particular the Department of Finance and Registration of the State Government. A family member of an army officer was treated in this way by the Department of Registration and Taxation by registering a document issued by a person who has no right or title to the property.

When the document was issued and registered on 11.06.1997 in favour of the assessor, who is none other than the daughter of an army officer, the same Deputy Registrar registered another document allegedly issued on 20.07.1999 by the same seller in favour of Shri I.A.J. Balan, Shri I.P. Andrew Raj, Shri I.S.J. Rozario, Shri I. Francis Jeyaraj and Shri I. Jerome Michael Pushpanathan. Some changes were made to this article by the 2016 Finance Act. Two reservations have been added to subsection (1), which reads as follows: The appraiser argued that this was only an emergency sale in the circumstances explained above, so the appraisal officer should have referred the matter to the appraisal officer to determine the actual market value.

It was also argued that, without consulting the valuator, the benchmark assumption for estimating capital gains was not justified. 5. However, the AO wished to tax the difference between the value assumed by the registration authorities at Rs 57,80,325 and the sale price between the parties at Rs 32,23,000, i.e. Rs 25,53,315 for the tax year 2011-12 on the grounds that since the document was finally registered on 26.06.2010, the 2011-12 tax year will be the year, in which the provisions of section 50C of the Act would be invoked and after tax a sum of 25,53,315 rupees.