SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, A-10, SUDERSHANPURA IND. AREA, 22 GODAM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 727/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 August 2020AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee raised objections regarding the fair market value before the CIT(A), the issue required determination by the DVO. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for limited purpose of getting the fair market value determined by the DVO.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 19,50,000, but the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 23,30,100. The AO added the difference of Rs. 3,80,100 under Section 56(2)(vii) as income from other sources. The assessee contended that the property was a skeleton flat and the AO should have referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO).

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was required to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the property when the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii) addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii),Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH VC, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 727/JP/2019

For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by :
Hearing: 25.08.2020
1.

The Appellant- Shri Mohan Sharma, Jaipur.

2.

The Respondent – The DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 727/JP/2019) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)

All 365 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →