Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Agra v. Tarun Agarwal

173 ITD 107Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#14614 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Also reported as

97 Taxmann.com 346

Sections most often in play

Section 50C Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)Section 144B Section 250 Section 270A Section 354 Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 50c(2)section 55a section 50c(1)circle rate section 55 date of transfer section 56(2)(x)stamp duty value full value of consideration section 50c section 50 fair market value

Judgments citing Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Agra v. Tarun Agarwal

SHRIKANT SOMAWAR, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 589/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.589/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shrikant Somawar Prop. Raigarh Gas Service, Gouri Shankar Mandir Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 001 Pan: Ajfps7436J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…- which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 4. That assailing the legal ground, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) Clayking Minerals LLP Vs. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 1 (Ahd.) (ii) ACIT Vs. Trun Agrawal (2018) 173 ITD 107 (Agra.) (iii) Ramdoss Ramvijay Kumar Vs. ITO (2023) 222 ITJ 39 (Chennai) 5. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR relied on the findings of the sub-ordinate authorities and could not bring on record any evidence to show that the department had referred the matter of the assessee to DVO for his comments. 6. Having heard the parties herein and on examinatio…

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the interests of justice

ITA 1005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nShri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD\nBEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n& SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nI.T.A. No.1005/Ahd/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2012-13)\nBhupendrabhai Bhikhalal Patel,\nMoti Khadki, Nr.Vaherai Mota\nMandir, Bakrol, Dist: Anand,\nGujarat-388315\n[PAN No.ANXPP7224K]\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-3,\nAnand\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by:\nShri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs\nRespondent by:\nShri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n28.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n15.10.2025\nORDER\nPER SIDDHAR…

SACHIN VASANT MASURKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

ITA 2060/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2060/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sachin Vasant V/S. Dcit Circle 16(3), Masurkar Mumbai बिाम Office No. 104, 201, 1St Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Floor, National 400002 Insurance Building Dn Road, Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Afwpm9401L .. Appellant/अपीलाथी Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya M. Rai- Sr Dr 18.07.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. Natural Justice

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai- SR DR

Section 250Section 270Section 354Section 56(2)(x)

…dition deserves to be deleted. [Ref. ACIT v/s Lalitha Karan ITA/1130/HYD/2015, et. al.] 4. The word "may" used in the proviso has to be read as shall. This has been so-held in numerous judicial precedents [Ref. ACIT v/s Tarun Agarwal [2018] 97 taxmann.com 346/173 ITD 107 (Agra-Trib), ITO v/s Aditya Narain Verma (HUF)[2017] 88 taxmann.com 840 (Delhi-Trib), et. al.]. Further, in this regard the P a g e | 6 ITA NO. 2060/Mum/2025 AY 2018-19 Sachin Vasant Masurkar following observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v/s CIT-(2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) are relevant: we are of the opinion…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1464/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153BSection 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Assessment Year Appellant Respondent ITA No.1463/Bang/2024 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Hubballi. Shri. Gowdara M. Lingaraju, Partner: Sri Prasanna Traders, APMC Yard, Bheemsamudra, Chitradurga, Karnataka - 577 520. PAN: ΑΕΥPM 5850 Q ITA No.1464/Bang/2024 2018-19 -do- Smt. Sheela Prasannakumar M/s. Sri Prasanna traders, APMC Yard, Bheemsamudra, Chitradurga, Chitradurga - 577 520, Karnataka. PAN: ACXPP4532 В Revenue by Assessee by : Ms. Nandini Das, C…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOL- KATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16 Tata Consumer Products Lim- The Deputy Commissioner of ited, (erstwhile Tata Global Bev- Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Kol- V erages Ltd.) kata - 700069 Vs 1, Bishop Lefroy Rd., Kolkata - 700020 (PAN: AABCT0602K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Sriram Sashdari, AR Respondent by : Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2024 O R D…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. RIDGEVIEW DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7883/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3. We Shall Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal Ground Wise.

Section 37(1)

…e addition u/s 43CA without remand back where the assessee had objected to the valuation adopted by stamp valuation authority even though no valuation report had been submitted by the assessee: ACIT vs. Ridgeview Developers Pvt. Ltd • ACIT vs. Tarun Agarwal 173 ITD 107 (Agra- Trib.) • 57 ITR (Trib) 449 (Del0 ITO v. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF • ITA No.228/Agra/2018 ITO-1(3) Mathura Vs. Ramesh Chandra Kulshreshth 20. Further he submitted that the above may kindly be taken on record and the appeal of the department may kindly be dismissed without allowing the Ld. Assessing Officer a second inning, by sending the m…