Meghraj Baid v. CIT (24 SOT 24)

Vankayalapati Kirmaye, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2126/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011 Ito, Ward -15(1), Vs. Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Hyderabad Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Vs. Ito, Ward -15(1), Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Hyderabad Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutham CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 148Section 50C

…objects to the value adopted by the registration authorities. The ‘may’ has been interpreted as ‘shall’ by various appellate authorities. a) Mrs Nandita Khosla vs CIT, 11 Taxmann.com 344 (Mum) b) Meghraj Baid vs CIT, 23 sot 24 (Del) c) Ito VS Manju Rani Jain, 24 SOT 24 (Del) d) Ajmal Fragrances & Fashions Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, 34 SOT 57 (Mum) 3. The documents produced during the appellate proceedings and the submissions of the assessee clearly show that the assessee objected to the value adopted by Registration Authorities as ‘market value’ 4. The AO during the remand proceedings did not refer the same to Valuation Of…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad vs. Vankayalapati Kirmayee, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1839/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011 Ito, Ward -15(1), Vs. Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Hyderabad Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Vs. Ito, Ward -15(1), Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Hyderabad Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutham CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 148Section 50C

…objects to the value adopted by the registration authorities. The ‘may’ has been interpreted as ‘shall’ by various appellate authorities. a) Mrs Nandita Khosla vs CIT, 11 Taxmann.com 344 (Mum) b) Meghraj Baid vs CIT, 23 sot 24 (Del) c) Ito VS Manju Rani Jain, 24 SOT 24 (Del) d) Ajmal Fragrances & Fashions Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, 34 SOT 57 (Mum) 3. The documents produced during the appellate proceedings and the submissions of the assessee clearly show that the assessee objected to the value adopted by Registration Authorities as ‘market value’ 4. The AO during the remand proceedings did not refer the same to Valuation Of…

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Vinod Garg, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…e entire appeal is restored back to the file of the AO with the direction that he would do as directed above and also give opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per law.” 1.12.2] Hon’ble Delhi bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs Smt Manju Rani Jain (2008) 24 SOT 24 (Del) has held ( Refer Para 10):- “10. In the instant case, undisputedly the assessee contended before the AO that the actual consideration received by the assessee should be taken as the market value of the properties sold and not the amount paid as stamp duty for the purposes of transfer of the properties because the same was on a higher side in…

Shri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6174/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ra Narain Chaudhri in Income Tax Appeal No.287 of 2011 dated 29.08.2013 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. (ii) Meghraj Baid v. ITO [114 TTJ 841] [Jodhpur ITAT] (iii) Appadurai Vijayaraghavan vs. JCIT (OSD) [369 ITR 486 (Mad)] (iv) ITO v. Manjurani Jain [(2008) 24 SOT 24 dated 17.04.2008 (Delhi ITAT)] 15. Therefore, in view of the above judgments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that where the assessee is challenging the assessed value of the Stamp Valuation Authority, the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have referred the matter of valuation to the District Valuation Officer, which is not done. 16. Ld. Coun…

ITO 31(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Surekha Vilas Soudagar, Mumbai

ITA 5198/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…1 ITA 5198/Mum/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI Before Shri Joginder Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.5198/Mum/2016 (Assessment year: 2012-13) ITO, 31(3)(4), Mumbai vs Smt. Surekha Vilas Soudagar 4D/2, Ashokraj CHS Ltd, S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-62 PAN : BJJPS5982F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Virender Singh Respondent by Shri Kamlesh N Doshi Date of hearing 12-06-2018 Date of pronouncement 20-06-2018 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-42, M…

Manju Bansal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1088/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR

Section 147Section 44A

…sessee.(Page No.13 of CIT(A) order.) 43. Where the assessee raised objection regarding the valuation adopted by stamp valuation authority the AO is duty bound to consider the same. Kindly refer to ITO v.Gita Roy 17 ITR (Trib.)431,(Kol), ITO v. Manju Rani Jain,24 SOT 24(Del), Trishla Jain v. ITO 11 ITR 579 (Del) Meghraj Baid vs. ITO 114 TTJ 841 (JD) and Rajendar Kumar Mankar v. SCIT (2015) 174 TTJ 409(JD). 44. The valuation report of the relevant property submitted by the assessee before ld. CIT (A), goes to the root of the issue and is quite essential to arrive at the fair market value of the property. 45.The AO…

Meghraj Baid v. CIT