CIT v. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimala Devi

279 ITR 360High Court2005#12544 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 136Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimala Devi

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…seller by the purchaser in the absence of any admissible evidence value taken by the stamp duty authority could not be taken as actual sale consideration and value shown in the sale deed had to be accepted. Also refer CIT v/s Smt. Raj KumariVimla Devi (2005) 279 ITR 360(All). CIT v/s ShwetaBuchar 192 Taxman 67(P&H) Also refer Hussain Ali Bohara in ITA No. 564 & 578/JDH/2011 dt. These above judgments have also been considered in the case M/s Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt.(Supra) The ratio of above judgments is also applicable in the present case and may kindly be considered. 3. On no incriminating documents : In th…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 295/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…e value taken by the stamp duty authority could not be taken as actual sale consideration and value shown in the sale deed had to be accepted. Also refer CIT v/s Smt. Raj Kumari Vimla Devi 19 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag Developers (2005) 279 ITR 360(All). CIT v/s Shweta Buchar 192 Taxman 67(P&H) Also refer Hussain Ali Bohara in ITA No. 564 & 578/JDH/2011 3.4. In this connection we also relying on the decision of Honble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s K.K. Enterprises 178 Taxman 187(Raj.)/13 DTR 289 wherein it has been held that “ AO determined the sale price of the plots by adopting the rate…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 180/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…e value taken by the stamp duty authority could not be taken as actual sale consideration and value shown in the sale deed had to be accepted. Also refer CIT v/s Smt. Raj Kumari Vimla Devi 19 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag Developers (2005) 279 ITR 360(All). CIT v/s Shweta Buchar 192 Taxman 67(P&H) Also refer Hussain Ali Bohara in ITA No. 564 & 578/JDH/2011 3.4. In this connection we also relying on the decision of Honble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s K.K. Enterprises 178 Taxman 187(Raj.)/13 DTR 289 wherein it has been held that “ AO determined the sale price of the plots by adopting the rate…

Mount View Club & Resorts P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1361/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Mount View Club & Income Tax Officer-10(3)(4), Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaccm5353M

…never raised before the Assessing Officer/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and such plea has been preferred for the first time before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Smt. Rajkumari Vimla Devi & Ors. (2005) 279 ITR 360 (All.) 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of club house & Resorts, providing recreation facilities, swimming pool, indoor games, joy rides, etc. The assessee sold two plots namely plot no. 46/0, Kandhroli, Dist. Raigad a…

S.M. Chandrashekar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1060/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)
Section 23(1)(c)Section 50C

…egally acceptable evidence, valuation done for the purpose of s. 50C would not represent actual consideration passed on to the seller. He placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimla Devi (2005) 279 ITR 360 (All). In that case Allahabad High Court has relied upon the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (1994) 4 SCC 595 to hold that the basic valuation register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty could not form the foundation to determine the market va…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Nirmal B Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4136/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4135/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) The Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ M/S Dayal Bapulal Thakkar (Huf), Income Tax 25(2), A-10, Charan Saran, Vile Parle Vs. (Erstwhile Acit-21(1), ) Model Town Co-Op Hsc, Room No.711, C-12, 7Th Floor, Gulmohar X Road No.7, Juhu, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai-400049 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 45(2)Section 48

…he fair market value, the stamp duty value can be only one of the factors and it cannot be the sole factor. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimala Devi (279 ITR 360), wherein it was held as under:- “8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that it is not in dispute that the properties in question were sold for a total consideration of Rs. 1,25,000 whereas for the purposes of stamp duty it was disclosed at Rs. 1,79,000. 9. The apex court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Dayal Bapulal Thakker, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4135/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4135/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) The Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ M/S Dayal Bapulal Thakkar (Huf), Income Tax 25(2), A-10, Charan Saran, Vile Parle Vs. (Erstwhile Acit-21(1), ) Model Town Co-Op Hsc, Room No.711, C-12, 7Th Floor, Gulmohar X Road No.7, Juhu, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai-400049 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 45(2)Section 48

…he fair market value, the stamp duty value can be only one of the factors and it cannot be the sole factor. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimala Devi (279 ITR 360), wherein it was held as under:- “8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that it is not in dispute that the properties in question were sold for a total consideration of Rs. 1,25,000 whereas for the purposes of stamp duty it was disclosed at Rs. 1,79,000. 9. The apex court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional…

Sh. Jitender Lohani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4263/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Rakhi Vimal, JCIT
Section 50CSection 69B

…ration in respect of the transfer and the burden of showing that there is such understatement is on the revenue for applying the provision on the purchaser. 4. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimla Devi & Anr. (2005) 279 ITR 360 (All), held as follows:- “Value of properties for stamp duty purposes cannot be treated as fair market value, and therefore, the difference between the said amount and the sale consideration cannot be charged to tax as deemed gift.” 5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA No.343 of 2012, in the case of CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta, vide its judgment da…

CIT v. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimala Devi (279 ITR 360) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax