Bimla Singh v. CIT

308 ITR 71High Court2009#4335 most cited

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.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bimla Singh v CIT · 308 ITR 71 · fair market value · tolerance limit · registered valuer · property valuation · income tax addition · Section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 120(3)Section 127Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

fair market valueopportunity of being heardsection 14section 143(3)total incomedocumentinterest

Judgments citing Bimla Singh v. CIT

(Smt.) Anju Singh, Lucknow vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 395/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

…the entire facts of the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly decided the issue and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with his order. In the result, the appeal was to be dismissed. 3.7.4. In the case of Bimla Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71/222 CTR (Pat.) 404 during search it was found that the assessee had made huge investment in house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house but according to the report of the valuer, cost of construction was Rs.12,99,700. It was held that in valuation of the house property bona fide di…

(Smt.) Anju Singh, Lucknow vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 394/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

…the entire facts of the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly decided the issue and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with his order. In the result, the appeal was to be dismissed. 3.7.4. In the case of Bimla Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71/222 CTR (Pat.) 404 during search it was found that the assessee had made huge investment in house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house but according to the report of the valuer, cost of construction was Rs.12,99,700. It was held that in valuation of the house property bona fide di…

(Smt.) Anju Singh, Lucknow vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 393/LKW/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

…the entire facts of the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly decided the issue and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with his order. In the result, the appeal was to be dismissed. 3.7.4. In the case of Bimla Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71/222 CTR (Pat.) 404 during search it was found that the assessee had made huge investment in house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house but according to the report of the valuer, cost of construction was Rs.12,99,700. It was held that in valuation of the house property bona fide di…

(Smt.) Anju Singh, Lucknow vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 392/LKW/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

…the entire facts of the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly decided the issue and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with his order. In the result, the appeal was to be dismissed. 3.7.4. In the case of Bimla Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71/222 CTR (Pat.) 404 during search it was found that the assessee had made huge investment in house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house but according to the report of the valuer, cost of construction was Rs.12,99,700. It was held that in valuation of the house property bona fide di…

(Smt.) Anju Singh, Lucknow vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 391/LKW/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

…the entire facts of the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly decided the issue and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with his order. In the result, the appeal was to be dismissed. 3.7.4. In the case of Bimla Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71/222 CTR (Pat.) 404 during search it was found that the assessee had made huge investment in house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house but according to the report of the valuer, cost of construction was Rs.12,99,700. It was held that in valuation of the house property bona fide di…

(Smt.) Anju Singh, Lucknow vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 390/LKW/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

…the entire facts of the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly decided the issue and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with his order. In the result, the appeal was to be dismissed. 3.7.4. In the case of Bimla Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71/222 CTR (Pat.) 404 during search it was found that the assessee had made huge investment in house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house but according to the report of the valuer, cost of construction was Rs.12,99,700. It was held that in valuation of the house property bona fide di…

S.K. Thermoformers, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 142ASection 69

…is 10.83%. The cost determined by the registered valuer is only estimation and therefore such difference in estimation is to be ignored as held by Hon’ble 5 M/s. S.K. Thermoformers vs ITO, Ward- 1(5), Jaipur Patna High Court in case of Bimla Singh vs. CIT 308 ITR 71 where it was 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 view of above, the addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted.’’ 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.5 I have…