ITO v. Rajni D. Saini
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Section 56(2)(vii)(b): allotment date versus registration date for stamp-value comparison on flat purchase.
Result: Operative order controls. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 56(2)(VII)(B)
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Section 56(2)(vii)(b): allotment date versus registration date for stamp-value comparison on flat purchase.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Income Tax Officer- 25(3)(3), Room No.606, 6th Floor, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ /Appellant बनाम Vs. Rajni D. Saini 6, Lalit Kunj, Dadabhai Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056. PAN: AACPS-7288-J ..... ितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथ ारा/ Appellant by : Smt. Shailaja Rai ितवादी ारा/Respondent by : Dr. K. Shivram with Shri Shashi Bekal सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 09/11/2022
Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has field written submissions giving the gist facts and the controversy involved.
3. Dr. K. Shivram appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that during the financial year 2010-11 the assessee had booked property in a building known as “Shrikant Chambers -II”, Chembur at a total consideration of Rs.2.60 crores. The Developer issued allotment letter dated 19/05/2010 wherein the specific number of the property Unit No.901 was allotted. The allotment letter also mentioned the schedule of payment. The assessee had made initial payment of Rs. 10.00 lacs at the time of allotment. Thereafter, installments were paid on behalf of the assessee to the developer by the parents of the assessee through various cheques. The ld.Counsel for the assessee furnished a table giving the details of date of payment, amount paid, cheque number with account number and name of Bank. The payments were made directly by the parents of the assessee to the developer. Gift deeds to that effect were also made by the parents of the assessee. The ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to the gift deeds at pages 185 to 198 of the Paper Book. The entire payment for purchase of property was concluded till Financial Year 2011-12. A registered sale deed dated 01/08/2013 was executed. During the…
that the sale consideration is less than stamp duty valuation on the date of registration, the assessee has two fold submissions. First, the date of allotment would be the date of purchase of immovable property. The ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the sale consideration agreed in the letter of allotment can be treated as an agreement for this purpose. Any agreement between the parties even if unregistered but preceded by a part payment of consideration through banking channel would suffice requirement of this proviso. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the decision in the case of PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan 413 ITR 248 (Bom).
Appellant / assessee submissions
3. Dr. K. Shivram appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that during the financial year 2010-11 the assessee had booked property in a building known as “Shrikant Chambers -II”, Chembur at a total consideration of Rs.2.60 crores. The Developer issued allotment letter dated 19/05/2010 wherein the specific number of the property Unit No.901 was allotted. The allotment letter also mentioned the schedule of payment. The assessee had made initial payment of Rs. 10.00 lacs at the time of allotment. Thereafter, installments were paid on behalf of the assessee to the developer by the parents of the assessee through various cheques. The ld.Counsel for the assessee furnished a table giving the details of date of payment, amount paid, cheque number with account number and name of Bank. The payments were made directly by the parents of the assessee to the developer. Gift deeds to that effect were also made by the parents of the assessee. The ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to the gift deeds at pages 185 to 198 of the Paper Book. The entire payment for purchase of property was concluded till Financial Year 2011-12. A registered sale deed dated 01/08/2013 was executed. During the…
that the sale consideration is less than stamp duty valuation on the date of registration, the assessee has two fold submissions. First, the date of allotment would be the date of purchase of immovable property. The ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the sale consideration agreed in the letter of allotment can be treated as an agreement for this purpose. Any agreement between the parties even if unregistered but preceded by a part payment of consideration through banking channel would suffice requirement of this proviso. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the decision in the case of PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan 413 ITR 248 (Bom).
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that letter of allotment was issued to the assessee by Shrikant Studios Pvt. Ltd. on 19/05/2010. The same is at page 16 to 18 of the paper book. The assessee had paid Rs.10.00 lacs at the time of allotment and the remaining amount of consideration was paid in installments. The parents of the assessee had made payment of the entire sale consideration in installments upto 17/12/2011. The aforesaid payments were directly made to the developer /builder by way of cheque. The assessee has furnished before the Authorities below letter of allotment, details of the payment of purchase consideration, confirmation from the builder that entire amount of consideration was paid before the date of registration of sale deed. The stamp duty value of the property at the time of allotment was Rs. 2.54 crores as against the agreed purchase consideration of Rs.2.60 crores. Thus, at the time of agreement to purchase, sale consideration was more than the stamp duty value. Now, the issue arises as to whether the stamp duty value of property
Operative decision and relief
7. We concur with the findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Section 56(2)(vii)(b): allotment date versus registration date for stamp-value comparison on flat purchase. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with section 56(2)(vii)(b): allotment date versus registration date for stamp-value comparison on flat purchase. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in ITO v. Rajni D. Saini?
Section 56(2)(vii)(b): allotment date versus registration date for stamp-value comparison on flat purchase.
Which facts matter most?
Income Tax Officer- 25(3)(3), Room No.606, 6th Floor, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ /Appellant बनाम Vs. Rajni D. Saini 6, Lalit Kunj, Dadabhai Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056. PAN: AACPS-7288-J ..... ितवादी/Respondent
What did the ITAT Mumbai decide?
9. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Section 56(2)(vii)(b): allotment date versus registration date for stamp-value comparison on flat purchase. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
56(2)(VII)(B)
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Section 56(2)(vii)(b): allotment date versus registration date for stamp-value comparison on flat purchase - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 56(2)(VII)(B) - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- JM Financial Ltd. v. Dy. CIT - ITAT Mumbai - F Bench
- Mrs. Usha Eswar v. ITO - Court / Tribunal to be verified
- Adityaraj Builders v. State of Maharashtra - Bombay High Court
Different outcome / possible distinction
- Reetu Devi Nanecha Vs ITO TDS - Quashed / set aside
- CIT-7 Vs. Paville Projects Pvt ltd - Quashed / set aside
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.