CWT v. Raghunath Singh Thakur

304 ITR 268High Court#7406 most cited
15

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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 55ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 55asection 55(2)section 54esection 55section 54ecsection 13(2)long-term capital assetcircle ratesection 53asection 53within four years

Judgments citing CWT v. Raghunath Singh Thakur

PREM LATA GUPTA ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1422/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Prem Lata Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-5/2A, Opp Cc Colony, Income Tax, Rana Pratap Bagh, North Delhi Central Circle Pin: 1100 07 Karnal. Pan: Aadpl3023F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Pawan GargFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(6)

…the land as on 1/4/1981 estimated by the registered valuer being based on sound factual basis and the phenomenal development in that area could not be rejected by the AO without assigning any specific reasons. 5.2 In the case of CWT Vs Raghunath Singh Thakur (304 ITR 268 HP) the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that if the Assessing Officer does not agree with the report regarding the valuer relied upon by the assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Cour…

JASWIN KAUR SETHI ,GURGAON vs. DCIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21 Jaswin Kaur Sethi, Vs Dcit, 218, Regency Park, International Taxation, Dlf Phase Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Enmps7327R

For Appellant: Ms Meenal Goyal CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55(2)(b)

…the land as on 1/4/1981 estimated by the registered valuer being based on sound factual basis and the phenomenal development in that area could not be rejected by the AO without assigning any specific reasons. 5.2 In the case of CWT Vs Raghunath Singh Thakur (304 ITR 268 HP) the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that if the Assessing Officer does not agree with the report regarding the valuer relied upon by the 8 assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Co…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SARASWATI DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4268/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AACPD8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAHPD8884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department by Sh. J.S. Minhas, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 02.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 31.07.2023…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MR. GUN NIDHI DALMIA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3776/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AACPD8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAHPD8884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department by Sh. J.S. Minhas, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 02.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 31.07.2023…

KAILASH JAGDISH SACHDEV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 INTE.TAXA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1537/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 147

…the land as on 1/4/1981 estimated by the registered valuer being based on sound factual basis and the phenomenal development in that area could not be rejected by the AO without assigning any specific reasons. 5.2 In the case of CWT Vs Raghunath Singh Thakur (304 ITR 268 HP) the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that if the Assessing Officer does not agree with the report regarding the valuer relied upon by the assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Cou…

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…the land as on 1/4/1981 estimated by the registered valuer being based on sound factual basis and the phenomenal development in that area could not be rejected by the AO without assigning any specific reasons. 5.2 In the case of CWT Vs Raghunath Singh Thakur (304 ITR 268 HP) the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that if the Assessing Officer does not agree with the report regarding the valuer relied upon by the assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Cour…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…the land as on 1/4/1981 estimated by the registered valuer being based on sound factual basis and the phenomenal development in that area could not be rejected by the AO without assigning any specific reasons. 5.2 In the case of CWT Vs Raghunath Singh Thakur (304 ITR 268 HP) the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that if the Assessing Officer does not agree with the report regarding the valuer relied upon by the assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Cour…

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…the land as on 1/4/1981 estimated by the registered valuer being based on sound factual basis and the phenomenal development in that area could not be rejected by the AO without assigning any specific reasons. 5.2 In the case of CWT Vs Raghunath Singh Thakur (304 ITR 268 HP) the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that if the Assessing Officer does not agree with the report regarding the valuer relied upon by the assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Cour…

SMT. VED KUMARI SUBHASH CHANDER,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2041/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ved Kumari Subhash Chander, Income Tax Officer, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Ward 11(1), D-28, South Extension Part – I, Gurgaon. Vs New Delhi-110049 (Pan: Abhpm0966F) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 54

…ITA No. 2041/D/2016 Assessment year 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2011-12 Ved Kumari Subhash Chander, Income Tax officer, C/o M/s RRA TAXINDIA, Ward 11(1), D-28, South Extension Part – I, Gurgaon. vs New Delhi-110049 (PAN: ABHPM0966F) Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate Shri Somit Aggarwal, Advocate Department by: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 30.05.2019 Date of pronouncement : 26.08.2019 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SR…

SHRI VINIT C. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 365/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Sept 2017AY 2009-10
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

…ITA No.365/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram : Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member] Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vinit C. Patel …...…..………Appellant 35 Swati Society, Nr. St. Xaviers High School, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. [PAN : AJAPP 7717 L] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(4), Ahmedabad. ….………….Respondent Appearances by : M.K. Patel for the appellant Prasoon Kabra for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 05.07.2017 Date of Pronouncing the order : 22.09.2017 O R D E R 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has c…

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5337/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…ficer disagreed with the valuation done by the Registered Valuer, he ought to have pointed out the discrepancies therein and recorded the reasons for doing so. Reliance, in this regard, was placed on the following decisions: CWT vs Raghunath Singh Thakur: 304 ITR 268 (HP) Sosamma Paulose vs JCIT: 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) Shanti Complex vs ITO: 63 ITD 181 (Pat.) (TM) Chitra Publicity Company (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT: (2010) 127 TTJ (Ahd) TM 1 ACIT vs Vinod Kumar Agarwal: 82 ITD 1 (Vishakapattnam) Amit Estate Organizer vs ITO: 316 ITR (AT) 190 3.16 It was submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, particularl…

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4579/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…ficer disagreed with the valuation done by the Registered Valuer, he ought to have pointed out the discrepancies therein and recorded the reasons for doing so. Reliance, in this regard, was placed on the following decisions: CWT vs Raghunath Singh Thakur: 304 ITR 268 (HP) Sosamma Paulose vs JCIT: 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) Shanti Complex vs ITO: 63 ITD 181 (Pat.) (TM) Chitra Publicity Company (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT: (2010) 127 TTJ (Ahd) TM 1 ACIT vs Vinod Kumar Agarwal: 82 ITD 1 (Vishakapattnam) Amit Estate Organizer vs ITO: 316 ITR (AT) 190 3.16 It was submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, particularl…

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2163/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…ficer disagreed with the valuation done by the Registered Valuer, he ought to have pointed out the discrepancies therein and recorded the reasons for doing so. Reliance, in this regard, was placed on the following decisions: CWT vs Raghunath Singh Thakur: 304 ITR 268 (HP) Sosamma Paulose vs JCIT: 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) Shanti Complex vs ITO: 63 ITD 181 (Pat.) (TM) Chitra Publicity Company (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT: (2010) 127 TTJ (Ahd) TM 1 ACIT vs Vinod Kumar Agarwal: 82 ITD 1 (Vishakapattnam) Amit Estate Organizer vs ITO: 316 ITR (AT) 190 3.16 It was submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, particularl…

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1789/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…ficer disagreed with the valuation done by the Registered Valuer, he ought to have pointed out the discrepancies therein and recorded the reasons for doing so. Reliance, in this regard, was placed on the following decisions: CWT vs Raghunath Singh Thakur: 304 ITR 268 (HP) Sosamma Paulose vs JCIT: 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) Shanti Complex vs ITO: 63 ITD 181 (Pat.) (TM) Chitra Publicity Company (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT: (2010) 127 TTJ (Ahd) TM 1 ACIT vs Vinod Kumar Agarwal: 82 ITD 1 (Vishakapattnam) Amit Estate Organizer vs ITO: 316 ITR (AT) 190 3.16 It was submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, particularl…

INFOMEDIA 18 LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS INFOMEDIA INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4441/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4441/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse (D.R)
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…such a situation if no reference is made to DVO , then the valuation report by registered valuer submitted by the assessee be accepted. The assesssee company relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Raghunath Singh Thakur reported in 304 ITR 268(HP). The assessee company submitted that the registered valuer Dr. Roshan H. Namavati being one of the most renowned registered valuer in Mumbai had been commended by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumangalam Coop. Housing Society Limited 2007Jt(1) SC 211. ITA 4441/M/2009 & 4461/M/2009 23 The assessee company submitted before the CIT(A) th…

CWT v. Raghunath Singh Thakur (304 ITR 268) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax