ISLAMI ACADEMY TRUST,DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION 1(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6675/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 November 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the lower authorities failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order concerning assessment year 2018-19, where lower authorities held the assessee derived long term capital gains on the alleged sale of twin plots. The difference was noted between the actual sale price and the stamp value price.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities made a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act in determining capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.11.2025Pronounced: 27.11.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal /2025 for assessment year 2018-19 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 26.08.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080012800(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have derived long term capital gains on alleged sale of its twin plots amounting to Rs. 11,46,139/-; on account of difference between the actual sale price of Rs. 32 lakhs vis a vis stamp value price thereof coming to Rs. 36,13,000/-; respectively in assessment order dated 11.02.2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, learned counsel submits that both the lower authorities nowhere made any statutory reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act to the DVO which has been held as mandatory in nature in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). This factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. This tribunal, therefore, finds merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal argument and remits the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication as per law. It is made clear that the learned Assessing Officer’s consequential computation shall only assess the assessee’s capital gain qua the plots sold/transferred in the relevant assessment year. Ordered accordingly.

All other issues between the parties are kept open at this stage. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 50C(2)

All 293 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →