What is Bimla Singh v. CIT authority for?

A difference between the registered value of a property and the assessee's declared value, if within a 10% tolerance limit, does not warrant an addition to income. Decisions rely on this case to argue that minor valuation discrepancies should not lead to additions.

How many judgments cite Bimla Singh v. CIT?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite Bimla Singh v. CIT (308 ITR 71), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bimla Singh v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 120(3), Section 127, Section 139(1), Section 139(5), Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Bimla Singh v. CIT (308 ITR 71)

SANJEEV KUMAR SAXENA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(4), LUCKNOW -NEW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…Tax Officer vs. Arti Securities & Services Ltd. [2021] 123 taxmann.com 395 (15) Order of ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, I.T.A. No.161/All/2015 (16) Judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Bimla Singh vs. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Patna) (17) Order of ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of Yashoda Builders and Developers vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.302/Nag/2024 (18) Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. UOI, I.T.A. No.302/Nag/2024 (19) Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 66 taxm…

MOHAMMAD MOHSIN QURESHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi Ito Ward-42(2)(4) Room No. 375, Plot No. 2, Shashtri Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra. Nagar, Near Bus Depot, Bandra West, Maharashtra-400050. [Pan No. Bexpk0365Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 21.08.2024 Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…clared by assessee is having a difference of 5.81%. It is within the tolerance limit of 10% hence no addition is liable to be made. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Patna High Court in Bimla Singh vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 71 (Patna). 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on the issue of condonation of delay submits that assessee has not explained the delay. The approach of assessee is casual in explaining the delay. The delay may not be condoned. On merit, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that DVO has already 5 Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi considered various…

SHREE KRISHNA BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…ifference between cost of construction shown by assessee and as determined by AO being less than 15 per cent, same is to be ignored for purposes of addition, more so when the construction was spread over a period of seven years. (ii) Bimla Singh vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 71 (Patna) 11.In view of above, order passed u/s 263 is illegal & unsustainable. 8. Based on aforesaid written submissions, it was the prayer of the Ld AR of the assessee that, the order passed u/s 263 is illegal and unsustainable, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 9. Ld. AR also placed his reliance on following judgments: (i) Pratap Vit…

SHREE KRISHNA COLONISERS,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…ifference between cost of construction shown by assessee and as determined by AO being less than 15 per cent, same is to be ignored for purposes of addition, more so when the construction was spread over a period of seven years. (ii) Bimla Singh vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 71 (Patna) 11.In view of above, order passed u/s 263 is illegal & unsustainable. 8. Based on aforesaid written submissions, it was the prayer of the Ld AR of the assessee that, the order passed u/s 263 is illegal and unsustainable, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 9. Ld. AR also placed his reliance on following judgments: (i) Pratap Vit…

KAISAR ABDUL AZEEZ SIDDIQUI,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

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

ITA 51/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri G. J. Ninawe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54F

…eld no addition is warranted if the difference between the value of DVO and actual sale consideration is less than 10%. I note that this Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Bimla Singh vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 71 at page no.77 of the Paper Book. 5 8. On perusal of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Radhika Sales Corporation vs. ACIT in ITA No.1474/PUN/2016, this Tribunal by placing orders of Co-ordinate Benches in the cases of Dattatraya Kerba Lonkar, Rahul Constructions and Bimla Singh held no addition is warranted on account of long term…

JITENDRA K SEWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result ground number 3

ITA 2252/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Parekh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 50Section 50C

…t evidence that difference between fair market value and apparent consideration was more than 15 per cent, initiation as well as acquisition proceedings u/s 269UD of the Act had rightly been held to be bad in law. 9.6 In the case of Bimla Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Patna), the High Court held that where difference between cost of construction shown by assessee and that estimated by valuer was less than 15 per cent and further construction of house was spread over period of 7 years, difference was so meagre that one could assume it to be bona fide difference, fit to be ignored. 9.7 We further observe that I…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1) , SURAT vs. SHRI DHANESH M. SANGHVI, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 373/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.373/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi V Circle-3(1), Room No.112, 1Str Floor, Diam Jewels, 7/4155, Sunder S. Anavil Business Center, Adajan Char Rasta, Sadan, Galemandi, Suthar Faliya, Surat Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxps 9521 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 269USection 50CSection 52

…of Tribunal in following cases held that difference up to 15% estimate needs to be ignored against the declared value.  C.B.Gautam Vs UOI (65 Taxman 440 (SC),  Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel Vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 134 (Guj HC) and  Bimla Singh Vs CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Pat). 9.The ld.AR for the assessee accordingly submits that by taking a broad view, the assessee may be allowed relief. The ld AR for the assessee furnished chart showing percentage of difference in the value shown by the assessee and the value accepted by ld CIT(A). 10.On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld.…

MANSUKHBHAI NANJIBHAI BHIMANI,SURAT vs. AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, The Income Tax Officer, Block No.4, Krishna Park Society, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat. Vs Shyam Dham Road, Nan Varachha, Surat – 395006. Pan: Achpb 9761 A Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 56

…of Tribunal in following cases held that difference up to 15% estimate neds to be ignored against the declared value.  C.B.Gautam Vs UOI (65 Taxman 440 (SC),  Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel Vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 134 (Guj HC) and  Bimla Singh Vs CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Pat). 9. The ld.AR for the assessee accordingly submits that by taking a broad view, the assessee may be allowed relief. The ld AR for the assessee furnished chart showing percentage of difference in the value shown by the assessee and the value accepted by ld CIT(A). 10. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld…

M/S SOMA BLOCK PRINTS (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142ASection 142A(2)Section 14ASection 155

…nst actual cost of Rs. 81,69,864/- incurred by the assessee and the same would be almost same as recorded in the books of accounts. This difference is less than 10% which is on account of estimation. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Bimla Singh vs. CIT 308 ITR 71 has held that the difference between the cost of construction declared by the assessee and that estimated by the valuer being less than 15%, the same is to be ignored. In any case, when the assessee has maintained day to day complete records of construction expenses and no discrepancy therein is pointed out by the DVO or the AO and no evidence of…