BHUPENDRA ABHIMANYU KUKREJA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 688/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 June 2026AY 2016-1722 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was less than 15%, falling within the permissible tolerance band. The DVO's valuation was also found to be based on a hypothetical development model, not the actual condition of the property.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land for Rs. 60,00,000, but the stamp duty value was Rs. 93,00,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition based on the Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report of Rs. 68,45,170. The CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the stamp duty value of Rs. 93,00,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 50C based on DVO's valuation is justified when the difference is within the tolerance band and the valuation method is flawed. Whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the adoption of stamp duty value without proper notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 251(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ADDL/JCIT (Appeals)-1, Vadodara (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 27/10/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the assessment order dated 11.06.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the ITO, Ward-4(2), Nagpur for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The order passed by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara u/s 250 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. The learned JCIT(A) erred in directing to compute long term capital gain by adopting sale consideration at Rs.93 lacs and dismissing the appeal of assessee. 2.

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →