Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT

196 ITD 36Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#5703 most cited

What is Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT authority for?

For the purpose of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when a reference is made to the District Valuation Officer (DVO), the comparison for determining the full value of the consideration has to be made between the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority and 110% of the consideration received, irrespective of the DVO's valuation if it falls outside this comparison.

20

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

Also referred to as

Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT · 196 ITD 36 · Section 50C · stamp duty value · consideration received · District Valuation Officer · DVO valuation

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 115USection 14ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80absection 70(2)section 54esection 80msection 10(15)section 10(33)section 14a(1)section 54ecsection 36(1)(viii)long-term capital assetsection 111a

Judgments citing Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

…ospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) HDFC Bank Ltd. 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made between the value adopted or assessed by the stamp v…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

…retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made between the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

ITA 2597/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

…ive \nin nature:\n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum)\n\ni. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum)\n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol)\n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del)\n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2049/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…ory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22.3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made between…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2047/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

…ective \nin nature: \ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n79 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2046/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…trospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made between the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authorit…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1890/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

…ospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made between the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authorit…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4983/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

…retrospective\nin nature:\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum)\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587\n(Mum)\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185\n(Kol)\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del)\n\n\n78\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21\n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of\nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is\nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We\nnote that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to…

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2862/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoca

…etrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 78 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be…

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 2861/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

…\nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\ni i. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum)\n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol)\n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\n78 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 2609/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

…nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\n78 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison…

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground so raised for Assessment \nYear 2004-05 is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2326/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

…nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\n78 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

ITA 2093/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

…nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…ory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22.3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made betwee…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…ory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22.3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made betwee…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…ory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 78 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made betwe…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…ory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22.3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made betwee…

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…ory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22.3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made betwee…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be m…

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

…\nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\ni. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\n79 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison…

Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT (196 ITD 36) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax