M/S GOYAL DEVELOPRS,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 210/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI S.S.GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not referring the valuation of the flats to the Valuation Officer as mandated by section 50C(2) when the assessee disputed the valuation. The matter was therefore set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a builder, sold flats for a value lower than that adopted by the Stamp Duty Authorities. The Assessing Officer made an addition under section 43CA, which was partially upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued for a reference to the Valuation Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not referring the valuation of the flats to the Valuation Officer when the assessee disputed the valuation adopted by the Stamp Duty Authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43CA,Section 50C

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, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - DR
Hearing: 29/04/2024Pronounced: 01/05/2024

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16 dated 08.12.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there was marginal difference between the sales consideration shown by the appellant and the value adopted for payment of Stamp duty & M/s.Goyal Developers [A]

therefore no addition was justified1. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not dealing with Ground no. 3 of the appellant requesting for r

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 43CA

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →