How many judgments cite CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran (429 ITR 97), spanning 2021 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 50C, Section 43CA, Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 1961.

CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran

429 ITR 97High Court2020#3042 most cited

What is CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran authority for?

The first and second provisos to Section 50C(1) are retrospective in nature and applicable from the inception of the main section. The third proviso to Section 50C(1) is also retrospective and applies from the same date as the main provision.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Vummudi Amarendran · Section 50C · Section 43CA · retrospective · first proviso · second proviso · third proviso · stamp duty value · circle rate

Also reported as

120 Taxmann.com 171

Sections most often in play

Section 50C Section 43CA Section 250 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 1961 Section 142(1)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 50c(1)safe harbour section 50c(2)section 43ca section 43c section 23(5)section 56(2)(x)(b)waiver of loan full value of consideration circle rate stamp duty value

Judgments citing CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran

Darshini Amit Sharma, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1345/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1345/Srt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Darshini Amit Sharma बनाम / Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Daman, Daman 207, Spectra Housing Society, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Blhps5706E (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलार्थी ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agrawal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/03/2026 19/03/2026 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)") Dated 30.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act") & Relates To

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…ptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to Section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same dat…

Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7535/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Income Tax Officer, 25-26, 6Th Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), Western Court Building, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 83, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400012. Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002. Pan : Acips3131J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 5O

…ptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)). The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to Section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same dat…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai vs. Amardeep Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 3202/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Central Circle -1(3), Mumbai Amardeep Constructions Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha 7/08, Patidar Complex, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Kannamwar Nagar No. 2, Near 400020 Vikas High School Vikhroli East, Mumbai 400083 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaufa3513A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa Nanda /Revenue By: Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Mumbai Amardeep Constructions Room No. 903, 9th Floor, Pratishtha 7/08, Patidar Complex, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Kannamwar Nagar No. 2, Near 400020 Vikas High School Vikhroli East, Mumbai 400083 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAUFA3513A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee by: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa Nanda /Revenue by: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR) Date of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.202…

Lakhdhir Virji Gala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4301/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Adake a/w Shri KartikFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jamale, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM Lakhdhir Virji Gala Income Tax Officer, Ward 501, B Wing, Saraswati Towers, Parsi 22(2)(1), Mumbai. Panchayat Road, Andheri East, Vs. Mumbai – 400069. PAN/GIR No. AABPG0582G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pravin Adake a/w Shri Kartik Dedhia Respondent by : Shri Sandeep Jamale, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner o…

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

…ushan Roy, ITA 3206 and 3316/Mum/2016 dt. 30.07.2018 Mohd Ilyas Hansari, 186 ITD 407 (Mum) The provisions of the first and second Provisos are held to be retrospective in nature and applicable from the year of inception of the main section. Vunndi Amarendran, 429 ITR 97 (Madras) Shrimati Rekha Agarwal, 38 NYPTTJ 895 (Raipur) Rahul G Patel, 195 TTJ (Ahd) 1027 Dharamshibhai Sonani, 181 TTJ (Ahd) 721 GROUND NO 7: POINT OF TAXATION The rights in premises under construction were acquired in the year 2013 on application, payment and allotment and therefore the income if any shall be P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Shei…

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), New Delhi vs. Rapid Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3522/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Sockalingam (HUF), Madurai vs. ACIT, Cirrcle - 1, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1849/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Sockalingam (Huf), V. Income Tax, Plot No.423, Kk Nagar East, Circle -1, 9Th Street, Madurai – 625 020. Madurai. [Pan: Aaxhs-5962-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

…ee stating that the amendment does not have retrospective operation and operates only from the specified date, 01.04.2021. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC also wrongly understood the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran, reported in 429 ITR 97. In Pages 16-17 of the order at Para 8.1., the ld.CIT(A) referring to Madras High Court observed that "wherein, it was held that "Proviso to section 50C(1) should be taken to be effective from the date when Proviso was introduced. By applying the ratio of the above decision, it is held that proviso to section 50C shall be effective from 01/04/2021…

Shamoon Ahmed Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6069/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Niyati Hakani, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Shamoon Ahmed Mulla, Income Tax Officer, 670, Mulla Mohalla, Ward 2(4), Kalyan, Badlapur Gaon, Office of Income Tax Badlapur, Vs. Department, 2nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Thane Maharashtra – 421 503 Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, PAN: AJSPM4496M Kalyan (W) Maharashtra – 421 306 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Niyati Hakani, Ld. A.R. & Mr. Rahul Kahani, Ld. A.R. (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 16 . 01 .2025…

Valukko Infrastrusture Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

ACIT 32 1, Mumbai vs. Vidhi Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2151/MUM/2024[2015 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal Shah

Section 147

…which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section as to what is the rationale behind the i…

Vidhi Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2060/MUM/2024[A.Y 2015-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal Shah

Section 147

Amit Shrivastav, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit - National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), The Appellant Pleaded That The Differential Was Less Than 10% But More Than 5% (Being The Tolerance Available For The Assessment Year In Question) & Hence For The Year Under Consideration The Safe Harbour Limit Of 5% Only Would Apply & Since The Impugned Amount Was More Than That Limit, He Sustained The Addition.

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 65/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Amit Shrivastva, Flat No. 1302, Liva Roca Gulmohar Cross Road, No. 12, JVPD, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400049 [PAN: BHEPS3231D] .......................…...……………....Appellant vs. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi .......................…..….............. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA Department represented by : Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date…

Aaeshka Riddhi Realty, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-NFAC - ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3970/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43CSection 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no. 3970/Mum./2024 (Assessment Year :2016–2017) Aaeshka Riddhi Realty 18, Kailash Darshan, 5th Floor, Nana Chowk, Near Kennedy Bridge, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400007. PAN-AAWFA9467B ……………. Appellant v/s CIT(A) – NFAC – ITO - 19(1)(1) Piramal Chamber, DR SS Rao Marg, Parel, ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400012. Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by :Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing – 17/09/2024 Date of Order – 20/09/2024 O R D E R PER SAND…

Shri Rajdeep Singh Chimni, Chandigarh vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(15)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…ed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171/429 ITR 97]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same date on w…

Nabhiraj Ratna Balraj by Legal Heir B.R.Rakesh, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 50C

…ptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended consequences of the main provision, we must hold that the third proviso to section 50C(1) comes into force with effect from the same dat…

V Govind (HUF), Velachery Main Road vs. ACIT, Greams Road

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

ITA 1114/CHNY/2023[2009.10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 53A

…Hence, according to him the circle rate should have been adopted as on 24.10.2005 and not on 05.11.2008. The ld.counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vummudi Amarendran reported in 120 Taxmann.com 171, wherein it is held as under:- “10. Reading of the above proviso would show that the legislature took note of the fact that there are several occasions where the Agreements are entered into between a willing vendor and willing purchaser on an agreed sale consideration, the Agreement is reduced into writing and in many a cases a substantiv…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Meelendra Deependra Singh, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.4430/Mum/2023 is dismissed

ITA 4430/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer Room No.116, 1St Floor, Meelendra Deependra Singh, G-Block, 503, Pushpakunj, A Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bfaps5402N Assessee By : Shri H.N. Motiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Meshram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Motiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…, dated 26th July, 2016, for A.Y. 2008-09 has categorically held that such provisions applied retrospectively. This decision has been followed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He further stated that the Hon'ble Madrass High Court in (2020) 429 ITR 97(Mad.)(HC) in case of CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran, has also held that amendment to Section 50C made with effect from 1st April, 2017 retrospective in nature and therefore, in that case it was applied to the A.Y. 2014-15. Therefore, now the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 011. We have carefully considered the rival contentions an…

Deependra Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(1) Mumbai, Bandra East

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2690/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledeependra Singh, Vs. Ito Ward-17(2)(1), 504 Pushpa Kunj, Kautaliya Bhavan, A Road,Marine Lines, Bandra East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400050. Pan/Gir No. : Akips3319N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Motiwalla.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougle. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…d back to Assessing Officer for recomputation of capital gain on basis of stamp duty valuation rate prevailing on date of 'agreement to sell' Held, yes [In favour of assessee/Matter remanded” (iv) Similarly the Madras High Court in CIT Vs, Vummudi Amarendran [429 ITR 97] has held as under: Deependra Singh, Mumbai. "As per the proviso to section 50C(1) where date of agreement, fixing amount of consideration and date of registration for transfer of capital assets are not same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by stamp valuation authority of the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing…

Rajpal Mehra (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2817/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50C

…Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 45 (Del). The Bench has also referred to yet another decision of this Tribunal in Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd), which has been approved by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Vummudi Amarendran 92020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad). We have no reason to take a different view and we respectfully concur with the view expressed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal as aforesaid. 7 Rajpal Mehra (HUF) 15. In that view of the matter the appellant-assessee would be entitled to the benefit of section 50C of the Act. Consequently, the appeal succeeds. The impugned additio…

Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, Surat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 2(1)(3), Surat

In the result, ground No

ITA 354/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Bcwpp 1537 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. PAN No. BCWPP 1537 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14/06/2023 Date of pronouncement 22/08/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed again…