DIRECT TAXES – High Court only liable for capital gains excluding the partners. So the amount was not taxable as capital gains.
6.
money is paid by father-in-law owing to urgent need of money by the son-in-law
Section 50C – Stamp Duty valuation CIT vs. Smt. M. Yesodha [2013] 31 taxmann.com 153 on date of Registration is the (Chennai) deemed full value of consideration / ! } =
Bagri Impex (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2013] 31 taxmann.com 39 (Kolkata)
penalty proceedings under section 271D on the ground that the assessee had obtained a loan of ` 20.99 lakhs in cash from her father-in-law, which was In this case the question of law framed was in contravention of the provision of section 269SS. whether, where the deed of conveyance which During the penalty proceedings, the assessee claimed was not registered in the year of receipt of that the amount received in cash from her father-inconsideration, taking the value assessed in year } = 2007-08 by stamp valuation authority, instead held that the assessee received the amount as a loan of actual transfer price for assessment year and not as a gift, because the same was shown as a |™™_$™� ~! loan in the balance sheet of the assessee, which was section 50C of the Act? filed along with the return of income. Hence, the } = = \/ ]}^ Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the court dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Tribunal deleted held that the intention of the Legislature was very the penalty. On further appeal in High Court, High clear from the beginning even before amendment Court affirmed the findings of Tribunal and held made in 2009 that the value for the purpose of that in the light of relationship between assessee and Income Tax shall be as the value for stamp duty. his father-in-law, the genuineness of transaction was The court refuted the contention of the assessee not in dispute and that the amount was paid by the father-in-law for the purchase of property and the year 2005-06 when the sale proceeds were received source had also been disclosed during the assessment on the basis of the definition appearing from proceedings. The court also held that if there was a section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The court also held genuine and transaction and the taxpayer that the assessee itself did not follow section could not get a loan or deposit by account payee 2(47)(v) of the Act because it did not offer the cheque or demand draft for some reason, the transfer for taxation in the year 1996 when the authority vested with the power to impose penalty possession is claimed to have been made over has discretion not to levy penalty. Therefore the court on the basis of the agreement for the sale in treated the transaction between the assessee and his accordance with section 2(47)(V) of the Act. The father-in-law as genuine transaction and it amounted court further held that designs to evade tax are to reasonable cause for deleting penalty u/s 271D of not permitted. The court affirmed the findings of the Act. the Assessing Officer that he rightly applied the provision of section 50C and it was applicable for 8. Section 2(22)(e) – Deemed Dividend determining full value consideration. He correctly C.V. Reddy 2013-TIOL-168-ITAT-Bang. Dated 26th applied the valuation made by the stamp valuation December, 2012. authority for calculation of stamp duty for the assessment year 2006-07. Advance granted to the director to purchase land in the name of the director but in which the company 7. Penalty – Sec. 271D – Provisions of ! s.2(22)(e).
section 271D is not applicable when
ML-459
The Chamber's Journal April 2013
137