How many judgments cite CIT v. Puja Prints?

88 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Puja Prints (360 ITR 697), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Puja Prints come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 55A.

CIT v. Puja Prints

360 ITR 697High Court2014#1303 most cited

What is CIT v. Puja Prints authority for?

The amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which replaced "is less than" with "is at variance" as the condition for referring a valuation to a Departmental Valuation Officer, does not have retrospective effect. Consequently, for periods before July 1, 2012, a DVO reference is invalid if the declared value is not "less than" the fair market value.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Puja Prints · 360 ITR 697 · Section 55A · retrospective amendment · "is less than" fair market value · "is at variance" fair market value · DVO reference · cost of acquisition · 01.04.1981 valuation · fair market value determination

Also reported as

224 Taxmann 22

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 55A

Issues it is cited on

fair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Puja Prints

SUSHILA JALINDHAR PATOLE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHPAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1058/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1058/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sushila Jalindhar Patole, V The Income Tax Officer, 84/1, E Ward Patole Mala, New S Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. Palace Road, Karvir, Kolhapur – 416003. Maharashtra. Pan: Eogpp8290P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2025. Though Ld.Cit(A) Has Mentioned A.Y.2010-11 In The Heading, But In The Body Of The Order A.Y.2011-12 Is Mentioned Which Is Correct Assessment Year.

Section 250Section 55A

…That being the case, this tribunal is of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in going by the DVO's report not having considered the earlier statutory provision in above terms. Case law Pooja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) has already settled the issue in assessee's favour and against the department that the foregoing statutory amendment does not carry any ITA No.1058/PUN/2025 [A] retrospective effect. I accordingly accept the assessee's foregoing sole substantive ground in very terms. Ordered accordingly.” 5. Mr.Bharat Patole and Asha B. Patole are one of…

AJIT CHAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -34(1)(1), MUMBAI CURRENT JURISDICTION WARD -42(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result,\nthe grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1255/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Section 254(1)Section 55A

…a) is\napplicable with effect from 01.07.2012 wherein the word “ is less than" its\nfair market value was substituted “is at variance". To support his submission\nthe Id. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional High court\nin Pooja Print 360 ITR 697 (Bom) and Gujarat High Court in Gaurangiben\nSodhan 108 DTR 442(Gujarat) and Ranjit Chaganlal Shah (Co-owner) in ITA\nno. 480/Srt/2018 dated 15.07.2020.\n3. On the other hand, Id. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower\nauthorities.\n4. I have considered the rival submission on both the parties and perused the\norders of lower authoritie…

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CAWAS DARASHA KARAKA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT\nMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 499/Ahd/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\nIncome-Tax Officer,\nWard-3(3)(12),\nAhmedabad\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nLate Shri Cawas Darasha\nKaraka, Legal Heir M/s.\nCawas Karaka Trust,\n22, Teen Murti Bungalows,\nNr. Devang Bungalows,\nThaltej, Ahmedabad-380054\n[PAN : AGSPK 9616 L]\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by :\nShri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &\nShri Parimalsinh H. Parmar, ARs\nRespondent by:\nAdjournment applica

For Appellant: \nShri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: \nAdjournment application filed

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 49(1)Section 55(2)(a)Section 69A

…MV. Reliance is placed on:\nITA No. 499/Ahd/2018\nITO Vs. Shri Cawas Darasha Karaka\nAsst. Year: 2013-14\n- 15-\n○ DCIT vs Vinod Harilal Mehta - ITA 2945/Ahd/2013;\n○ CIT vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan - (2014) 367 ITR 238 (Guj);\n○ CIT vs. Puja Prints - (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom);\nThus, reference to DVO is invalid and hence, FMV adopted by\nassessee cannot be disturbed. Even on that count, CIT(A) has\nrightly held that even the addition of Rs.3,42,69,479/- cannot\nbe made by AO.\n8.\nWe have heard the rival contentions and perused the material\navailable on record. The following facts emanate:-\ni.\nThe assessee tr…

BHARAT JALANDAR PATOLE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), KOLHAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 394/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 147Section 55Section 55A

…at being the case, this tribunal is of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in going by the DVO’s report not having considered the earlier statutory provision in above terms. Case law Pooja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that the foregoing statutory amendment does not carry any retrospective effect. I accordingly accept the assessee’s foregoing sole substantive ground in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in…

KIRANKUMAR RAMANLAL NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 415, Dabhi Street, Near Zanda Chowk, Ward-2(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akcpn2062P िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rushin Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.18/SRT/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 415, Dabhi Street, Near Zanda Chowk, Ward-2(3)(2), Room No.615, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AKCPN2062P िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Rushin Patel, AR राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Heari…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…argued that prior to 1st July, 2012, for the purpose of valuation u/s.55 of the Act, reference cannot be made if value of asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 76. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held tha…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…r to 1-7-2012, reference u/s. 55A is invalid if value of asset as per registered valuer appointed by assessee was more than its FMV in the opinion of Assessing Officer for which reliance was mainly placed on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 (iii) CIT v. Daulat Mota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iv) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (v) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (vi) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 5. Th…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…und any material information which prove that such valuation is incorrect but only on presumption that such valuation is higher, he has referred the matter to DVO. The identical issue is discussed by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Puja Prints 360 ITR 697 wherein it is held as under: 7. We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less than the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the value adopted by the resp…

ACC LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL CIT ,(LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6638/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 14A

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…argued that prior to 1st July, 2012, for the purpose of valuation u/s.55 of the Act, reference cannot be made if value of asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that…

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATES CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…argued that prior to 1st July, 2012, for the purpose of valuation u/s.55 of the Act, reference cannot be made if value of asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that…

ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…argued that prior to 1st July, 2012, for the purpose of valuation u/s.55 of the Act, reference cannot be made if value of asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that…

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54BSection 55A

…market value, thus the reference made to DVO was without jurisdiction. The assessee has also relied on various case laws as under: 13 Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida Vs DCIT (i) CIT Vs Gauragiben S Shodhna (2014) 108 DTR 442 (Guj) (ii) CIT Vs Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs Daulal Mohta (HUF) (2014) 360 ITR 680 (Bom) (iv) Pradeep G Vora 58 taxmann.com 110 (Mum Trib)/(2015) 154 ITD 118 (Mum) (v) Rubab M Kazerani 91 ITD 429 (Mum-TM). (vi) Jagrutiben V Patel Vs ITO Ward 2(2)(2), Surat and Bharvinaben V Patel Vs ITO Ward 2(2)(2), Surat ITA No. 650 & 651/Ahd/2017) (vii) Shri Mahadevbhai Mohanbhai Naik…

RAMESHCHANDRA RAMDHAN AGRAWAL,AKOLA vs. ITO, WARD- 1, AKOLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe (through virtual)

Section 50ASection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR VIRTUAL HEARING HELD AT ITAT PUNE BENCHES, PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM ITA No. 151/NAG/2017 : A.Y. 2009-10 Rameshchandra Ramdhan Agrawal At & Post : Khedl Deshpande Tq. Telhara, Dist. Akola PAN: AMRPAO 0404B :Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1, Akola Respondent Appellant by : Shri K.P. Dewani (through virtual) Respondent by : Shri G.J. Ninawe (through virtual) Date of Hearing : 27-10-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28-10-2022 ORDER This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Nagpur dated 30-01-2017…

HEMANT VITHALRAO WAJE,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, NASHIK

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.651/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Hemant Vithalrao Waje, 57, Ashok Nagar, Ganesh Peth, Sinnar, Dist. Nashik, Pin – 422 103 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aampw3885H

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 55Section 55A

…y Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 as “is at 4 A.Y. : 2012-13 Shri Hemant Vithalrao Waje, variance with its fair market value” in an instance involving the registered valuer‟s report. Hon‟ble jurisdictional high court decision in CIT V/s Pooja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom) holds forgoing amendment to be having prospective effect only. That being the case, we conclude that learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned long term capital gain addition of Rs.1,70,11,837/- after reference to the DVO u/s. 55A(a) of the Act. The assessee‟s corresponding grounds in the instant appeal…

SURESH LAXMAN KAMATHE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(4),, PUNE

ITA 1777/PUN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1777/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Suresh Laxman Kamathe, The Income Tax Officer, Kondai Palace, Pandavand Vs Ward-14(4), Pune. Road, A/P Fursungi, Tal: Haveli, . Dist: Pune, Pan: Asfpk 0991 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 03.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 14(4)/11050/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54B

…substantive grounds. Rejected accordingly. 3. We now advert to the assessee’s second substantive ground raising the issue of cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion rejecting his arguments in light of CIT Vs. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bom) reads as follows: “6.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and law ITA No.1777/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 Suresh L.Kamathe (A) apparent from records. The assessee has sold land and received a sum of Rs. 92,12,500/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the appellant submitted valuation Report from Mr. Amin Shaikh for…

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

ITA 931/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153

…: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reference made to the DVO is invalid by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in the case of CIT vs Pooja Prints 360 ITR 697 [2014], which relate to sec 55A and A.Y. 2006-07. Whereas, in present case reference was made under sec 142A for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be held to be bad in law and be quashed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The assessees three appeals on the other hand plead the following identical su…

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5