Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO

310 ITR 31High Court2009#1717 most cited

What is Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO authority for?

When an assessee presents a registered valuer's report for an asset, the Assessing Officer, if forming an opinion that the value claimed is less than the fair market value, must refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A(a). The AO cannot unilaterally reject the registered valuer's report or resort to Section 55A(b) in such a scenario.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO · Section 55A · registered valuer report · Assessing Officer · Valuation Officer reference · fair market value · Section 55A(a) · Section 55A(b) · DVO reference · property valuation

Also reported as

181 Taxmann 191

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 55ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 155(15)Section 48Section 50C

Issues it is cited on

section 55asection 55fair market valuesection 143prescribedsection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO

Ravindra P. Mhatre, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4227/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4226/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Pandurang G. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aozpm 3751 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4227/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Ravindra P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0812 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4228/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Anil P. Mhatre, Flat No.102/103, Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane-411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0860 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4229/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Smt. Baijabai P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Apkpm 7326 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 55A

…- Jyoti Construction Co., ITA No.2393/Muml2014 dt. 27.04.2016 - Hon. Members, "J" Bench, IT AT Mumbai 4. ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, "0" Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal Shah -Vs- ITA & Anr. 310 ITR 31 (Guj) (2009) 6. The Finance Bill 2012, Bill No. 11 of2012. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and contended that the CIT(A) has relied on the sale instances of village Chikanghar, Kalyan, the land of the assessee was located at village Gandhare, Kalyan and the location and other factors were comparable. 8. I have…

Pandurang G. Mhatre, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4226/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4226/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Pandurang G. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aozpm 3751 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4227/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Ravindra P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0812 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4228/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Anil P. Mhatre, Flat No.102/103, Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane-411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0860 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4229/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Smt. Baijabai P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Apkpm 7326 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 55A

…- Jyoti Construction Co., ITA No.2393/Muml2014 dt. 27.04.2016 - Hon. Members, "J" Bench, IT AT Mumbai 4. ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, "0" Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal Shah -Vs- ITA & Anr. 310 ITR 31 (Guj) (2009) 6. The Finance Bill 2012, Bill No. 11 of2012. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and contended that the CIT(A) has relied on the sale instances of village Chikanghar, Kalyan, the land of the assessee was located at village Gandhare, Kalyan and the location and other factors were comparable. 8. I have…

M/S Pyne Properties Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 50Section 55A

…. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that when the valuation made by the Registered Valuer was on the higher side, there was no occasion for the AO to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A In the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah vs ITO reported in 310 ITR 31, a similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 13. In the instant case, before referring the valuation of land to the Valuation Cell the A.O had not formed an opinion that the value of the Assessee's land was ITA No. 1791/Kol/13 M/s. Pyne Properties P.Ltd. 7 less than its fair market value. Secondly as per Registered Valuer, the v…

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 8739/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

…he DVO is not valid. 9.8. Our attention was also invited to the following decisions which have decided the same principle with regards to the applicability of section 55A(a) vis-a-vis section 55A(b): (a) Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v Income-tax Officer (Gui HC) (310 ITR 31) b) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v Joint Commissioner of Income-tax 97 TTJ 698 (Mum) c) Income-tax Officer vs Smt. Lalitaben Kapadia (115 TTJ 938) (Mum) (d) Smt. Sarla N. Sakraney v Income-tax Officer (Mum) (e) Sajjankumar M. Harlalka v Joint Commissioner of Income- tax (102 TTJ 974) (Mum) (f) Smt. Krishnabai Tingre v Income-tax Officer (101 lTD 317)…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Anil T. Kriplani, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6358/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-2(2), Vs. Angeela Vasandani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Pan: Ahtpv3859Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Anil T. Kriplani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Pan: Bfspk8660Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Cit(A), Each Dated 24.09.2013 Passed For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, We Proceed To Decide

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 DDIT, Circle-2(2), Vs. Angeela Vasandani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (PAN: AHTPV3859Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2010-11 DDIT, Circle-3(1), Vs. Anil T. Kriplani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (PAN: BFSPK8660Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR Respondent by : Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv. Date of hearing: 08.09.2015 Date of pronouncement: 2…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. Angeela Vasandani, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6081/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-2(2), Vs. Angeela Vasandani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Pan: Ahtpv3859Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Anil T. Kriplani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Pan: Bfspk8660Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Cit(A), Each Dated 24.09.2013 Passed For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, We Proceed To Decide

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 DDIT, Circle-2(2), Vs. Angeela Vasandani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (PAN: AHTPV3859Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2010-11 DDIT, Circle-3(1), Vs. Anil T. Kriplani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (PAN: BFSPK8660Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR Respondent by : Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv. Date of hearing: 08.09.2015 Date of pronouncement: 2…