ANANDKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was justified as the assessee had not disclosed the sale value as per the stamp valuation authority. The DVO's valuation of Rs. 5,51,000 was upheld as it was less than the stamp duty value and was determined after considering various factors.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold a commercial property for Rs. 4 lacs, but the stamp valuation authority assessed it at Rs. 5,79,911. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147, and referred the valuation to the DVO, who determined the fair market value at Rs. 5,51,000.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was justified and whether the fair market value determined by the DVO under Section 50C(2) should be adopted for capital gains calculation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 50C,Section 50C(2),Section 50C(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh
PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, arises from order of the CIT(A)-3, Rakot dated 16-02-2018, in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
I.T.A No. 146/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 Page No 2
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The CIT {A} erred in upholding the reopening the assessment under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The reopening of the assessment is not justified.
Without prejudice to ground no 1, The CIT {A} erred in upholding the determining the l
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026