As for ques 2,Please find the extract: General provision V/s Specific ProvisionIt is a well-known rule of interpretation that in a case where a general as well as a specific section is applicable, the specific provision will overrule the general provision. Examining the facts of the case with this rule, Section 45(3) of 50C, whichever is the specific provision should overrule the other section.Though in the case “Carlton Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2009 TaxPub (DT) 1039 (Luck–Trib)” it has been established that Section 45(3) is a general provision and section 50C is a specific provision, . While section 50C is specific to a class of asset (land and building), section 45(3), though is general as far as the class of assets is concerned, it is specific to a category of transaction (contribution of capital by partner to a firm). This makes it difficult to arrive at a conclusion regarding which section is general and which section is specific and shall apply in this case. Deemed consideration V/s Consideration received or accruedSection 50C reads as “Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both..”. In case of contribution of land as capital by partner to the partnership firm, no consideration is received or accrued as a result of such transfer.Section 45(3) was introduced, in 1987, for deeming an amount as ‘full consideration’, so as to calculate the capital gain on contribution of asset by a partner to a partnership firm. The deemed ‘full consideration’ is an expression different from the word ‘consideration’ appearing in Section 50C. Hence the amount determined as consideration in case of contribution of an immovable property by a partner to partnership firm is a deemed one which is received by or accrued to the partner. Hence, Section 50C should not be invoked in such cases and Section 45(3) should apply.since the immovable land is not assessable for the purpose of stamp duty, Section 45(3) is not a general provision and Section 50C is not a specific one and that the consideration as per Section 45(3), which is the charging section, is deemed consideration, it can be contended that Section 50C should not be invoked in a case of contribution by partner of an immovable property to a partnership firm as capital. The consideration as per Section 45(3) should be binding. However, due to lack of any High Court or Supreme Court decisions on this subject post the amendment in Section 50C in 2009, this controversy remains outstanding.