Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-3, Delhi v. Sharan Svadha LLP

Delhi HC9 Feb 2024ITA/750/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against an ITAT ruling. The Court held that Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies only to the vendor or seller of a capital asset and has no application to a purchaser regarding stamp duty considerations.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, and the ITAT judgment upholding the validity of the assessee's position was allowed to remain.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-3, Delhi Vs Sharan… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 750/2023

¶4

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. SC with Mr. Parth Semwal, SC.

¶5

versus

¶6

SHARAN SVADHA LLP ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R % 09.02.2024

¶10

The Department has assailed the validity of the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ ITAT ”] dated 11 October 2022.

¶11

The issue itself arises out of the invocation of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act ”] against the respondent / assessee in respect of a transaction relating to an immovable property to which it was a party. Undisputedly, the respondent / assessee had purchased the subject property for an amount of Rs.7,84,00,000/-. The respondent / assessee took into consideration the fact that the stamp duty paid in respect of that transaction was amounting to Rs.12,34,00,000/-. It was perhaps on that basis that the Department proceeded on the premise that Section 50C of the Act would be applicable.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 15:08:10

¶13

The ITAT has found that the aforesaid provision has been wrongly invoked bearing in mind the fact that it would apply only to an assessee who has received consideration or to whom consideration may have been paid as a result of the transfer of a capital asset.

¶14

Section 50C of the Act thus, on its plain language, is clearly concerned with the vendor or the seller of the property in question. The said provision can have no application to a purchaser.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the instant appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed.

¶16

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶17

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

¶18

FEBRUARY 9, 2024/p

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 15:08:10

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-3, Delhi v. Sharan Svadha LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-3, Delhi v. Sharan Svadha LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.P. Basia & Co. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34(1) Delhi

Ishwar Chand Bansal Vs Ito Ward 41(1) Delhi & Ors.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 Vs A.V Valves Ltd.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 Vs M/S Creamy Foods Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax (Central )-1 Vs Smt. Kundan Singh

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX-4, Vs M/S Hcil Comtel Ltd.