CIT v. Puja Prints

360 ITR 697High Court2014#1290 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.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 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 250Section 55A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

fair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Puja Prints

Shripal Tejraj Munot, Dhule vs. Incoame-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Dhule

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 131/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.131/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shripal Tejraj Munot, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhule. 1816, Lane No.2, Opp. Jain Mandir, Dhule-424001. Pan : Abgpm9080R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri M. G. Jasnani : Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’S Order Dated 03.03.2021 Passed In Case No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2020- 21/1031172239(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In His Pleading Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 55A

…section 55A(a) of the Act as I am dealing with assessment year 2012-13 whereas the legislature has amended the same w.e.f. 1.7.2012 relevant to the succeeding assessment year 2013-14. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in ITO vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) holds the foregoing statutory amendments as carrying prospective effect only. Faced with this situation, I hold that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned long term capital gains addition. The same is directed to be deleted. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pron…

Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Pune

ITA 933/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…

Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

ITA 932/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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar, Pune

ITA 824/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…

Bhushan Ramchandra Zinzurde, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2280/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2280/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Late Bhushan Ramchandra Zinjurde, L/H Reshma Bhushan Zinjurde, B1/C,Flat No.110, Sonigarakesar,Wakad, Pune – 411 057 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aalpz8225D बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Cir-4, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)

…1.7.2012 vide Finance Act 2012 thereby 3 Late Bhushan Ramchandra Zinjurde, ., substituting “is less than its fair market value”. The same admittedly carries prospective effect whereas we are in assessment year 2011-12. We thus quote CIT Vs Puja Prints 2014 360 ITR 697(Bom.) that the impugned statutory provision could not be applied with retrospective effect for the purpose of ascertaining such a cost acquisition claimed as more than the fair market value. We accordingly accept the assessee’s latter substantive ground in very terms. No other ground has been pressed before us. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partl…

Mukeshbhai Ramubhai Ahir, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3) (3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1652/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mukeshbhai Ramubhai Ahir Ito, Ward-1(3)(3), 49,-B, Ambanagar, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs B/H Kapadia Health Club, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Bhatar, Surat-395002. Gate, Surat. Pan : Aqqpa1546H Applicant Respondent

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 54B

…bmits that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Gauranginiben S. Sodhan [367 ITR 238 (Guj.)] held that the amended provision in section 55A is not applicable to the transaction prior to 01.07.2012. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Pooja Prints [360 ITR 697 (Bom.)] has held that the Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amended section of 55A of the Act. 6. The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that on similar facts and grounds of appeal the this Tribunal in Ranchodbhai Patel & Rasikaben Jayantibhai Patel in ITA No. 821& 822/Ahd/2016 vide order dated by following the decision of…

Shri Virendra Natwarlal Jariwala, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Virendra Natwarlal Jariwala The Dy. Commissioner Of D-10/11, Aenav Complex-C, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Vs City Light Road, Surat. Surat-495003. Pan : Aachj7085E Applicant Respondent Shri Sudhir Natwarlal Jariwala Ito, Ward-3(1)(5), (Huf), 6/2578, Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Rampura, Surat-495003. Majuragate, Surat. Pan : Aaehs3103G Applicant Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 55A

…of land prior to 01.07.2012, the assessee in that case was allowed similar relief by the Tribunal, by following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Gauranginiben S Sodhan (367 ITR 238 Guj) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pooja Prints 360 ITR 697 (Bom). The relevant part of decision of Tribunal in Ranchodbhai C. Patel vs. ITO (supra) is extracted below; “9.We have considered the rival contention of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that on similar set of fact, the coordinate bench of Tribunal in Jignesh Kumar (AY 2013-14) S Modi (HUF) Vs ITO…

Smt.Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(7), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.06/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Vs The Income Tax Officer, A/42, Padariya Mohallo, Adajan . Ward-1(3)(7), Surat. Gam, Surat. [Pan: Biypp 0688 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 55A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.06/SRT/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Vs The Income Tax Officer, A/42, Padariya Mohallo, Adajan . Ward-1(3)(7), Surat. Gam, Surat. [PAN: BIYPP 0688 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee by Shri Manish Shah – AR राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue by Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing: 19.01.2021 उ"घोषण…

Narendra Kumar Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

ITA 1532/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 292BSection 50CSection 55(2)(b)Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACVPG8013G Assessee by : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been…

Uttam Sadhu Tupe, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (3), Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1109/PUN/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 50CSection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1108/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Shri Hemant Sudam Tupe, ITO, Ward-1(3), Vs. S.No.201, SadesatraNali, Pune Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 PAN : AEHPT8554M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1109/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Shri Uttam Sadhu Tupe, ITO, Ward-1(3), Vs. S.No.197, SadesatraNali, Pune Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 PAN : AAMPT9911D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Abhay A. Avchat Respondent by Smt. Vranda U. Matkari Date of heari…

Hemant Sudam Tupe, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Ward - 1 (3), Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1108/PUN/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 50CSection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1108/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Shri Hemant Sudam Tupe, ITO, Ward-1(3), Vs. S.No.201, SadesatraNali, Pune Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 PAN : AEHPT8554M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1109/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Shri Uttam Sadhu Tupe, ITO, Ward-1(3), Vs. S.No.197, SadesatraNali, Pune Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 PAN : AAMPT9911D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Abhay A. Avchat Respondent by Smt. Vranda U. Matkari Date of heari…

Smt. Asha Narayan Shewale, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11 (2), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

ITA 1107/PUN/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 50C

…the fair market value of the property was claimed by the Officer to be lower than the value adopted by the assessee. In support of such an argument, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) holding that reference u/s.55A can be made to DVO only when the value adopted by the assessee is less than the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) agreed with such a proposition. He, however, did not find applicability of such a ratio to the Nitin N. Shewale & 2 others facts of the instant case in the light of amendment carried out to…

Nitin Narayan Shewale, Legal Heir of Late Smt. Chandrabhaga E. Shewale, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11 (1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

ITA 1106/PUN/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 50C

…the fair market value of the property was claimed by the Officer to be lower than the value adopted by the assessee. In support of such an argument, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) holding that reference u/s.55A can be made to DVO only when the value adopted by the assessee is less than the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) agreed with such a proposition. He, however, did not find applicability of such a ratio to the Nitin N. Shewale & 2 others facts of the instant case in the light of amendment carried out to…

Nitin Narayan Shewale, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11 (1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

ITA 1105/PUN/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 50C

…the fair market value of the property was claimed by the Officer to be lower than the value adopted by the assessee. In support of such an argument, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) holding that reference u/s.55A can be made to DVO only when the value adopted by the assessee is less than the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) agreed with such a proposition. He, however, did not find applicability of such a ratio to the Nitin N. Shewale & 2 others facts of the instant case in the light of amendment carried out to…

Anil T. Kriplani, New Delhi vs. CIT(It-2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 506/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…le for estimating the fair market value by the DVO u/s 55A(a) of the Act, where the fair market value was less than the value declared by assessee. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) and also decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sh. Maruti G.Thopte vs ITO in ITA No.863/Pun/2017 dated 05.01.2018. He further pointed out that in case, no reference could be made to the DVO then the Assessing Officer had to accept the valuation of the Registered Valuer and other material and in such cases the assessment…

Shashi Shekhar Saraf (L.R. of Late Shri Ram Awatar Saraf), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 45, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2314/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Nath, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147

…prior to the amendment u/s 55A(a) of the Act, which was inserted w.e.f. 01/07/2012 as the impugned Assessment Year was 2008-09. This position is clear from the following decisions:- 5.1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay), held as follows:- “Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Reference to Valuation Officer (Validity of reference) - Assessment year 2006-07 - Whether when a specific provision under which reference can be made to Departmental Valuation Officer(DVO) is available, there is no occasion for Assessing Officer to invoke gene…

Nikunjkumar D. Modi HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 549/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Viresh I. Rudalal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Jigneshkumar S. Modi (HUF) Vs. ITO, Modi Faliya, Kadodara, Tal. Palsana, Ward 1, Dist. Surat-394327, Gujarat Bardoli PAN/GIR No.: AAFHJ9730D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Vijaykumar Gamanlal Modi Vs. ITO, (HUF) Modi Faliya, Kadodara, Tal. Ward 1, Palsana, Dist. Surat-394327, Bardoli Gujarat PAN/GIR No.: AAHHV4108F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Gamandbhai Nanubhai Modi Vs. ITO, (HUF) Modi…

Anilkumar Gamanlal Modi, HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Viresh I. Rudalal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Jigneshkumar S. Modi (HUF) Vs. ITO, Modi Faliya, Kadodara, Tal. Palsana, Ward 1, Dist. Surat-394327, Gujarat Bardoli PAN/GIR No.: AAFHJ9730D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Vijaykumar Gamanlal Modi Vs. ITO, (HUF) Modi Faliya, Kadodara, Tal. Ward 1, Palsana, Dist. Surat-394327, Bardoli Gujarat PAN/GIR No.: AAHHV4108F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Gamandbhai Nanubhai Modi Vs. ITO, (HUF) Modi…

Madhuben Dilipbhai Modi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 547/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Viresh I. Rudalal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Jigneshkumar S. Modi (HUF) Vs. ITO, Modi Faliya, Kadodara, Tal. Palsana, Ward 1, Dist. Surat-394327, Gujarat Bardoli PAN/GIR No.: AAFHJ9730D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Vijaykumar Gamanlal Modi Vs. ITO, (HUF) Modi Faliya, Kadodara, Tal. Ward 1, Palsana, Dist. Surat-394327, Bardoli Gujarat PAN/GIR No.: AAHHV4108F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Gamandbhai Nanubhai Modi Vs. ITO, (HUF) Modi…

Gamanlal Nanubhai Modi HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 546/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Viresh I. Rudalal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Jigneshkumar S. Modi (HUF) Vs. ITO, Modi Faliya, Kadodara, Tal. Palsana, Ward 1, Dist. Surat-394327, Gujarat Bardoli PAN/GIR No.: AAFHJ9730D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Vijaykumar Gamanlal Modi Vs. ITO, (HUF) Modi Faliya, Kadodara, Tal. Ward 1, Palsana, Dist. Surat-394327, Bardoli Gujarat PAN/GIR No.: AAHHV4108F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Gamandbhai Nanubhai Modi Vs. ITO, (HUF) Modi…