Meghraj Baid v. ITO

114 TTJ 841Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#22069 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Meghraj Baid v. ITO

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)

…14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions: - (i) CIT v. Sh. Chandra 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. Ass…

M/S.Rashmi Singh, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-26, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2380/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 263Section 50CSection 54

…ed u/s 50C can become starting point of an inquiry cannot be sole concluding reason to hold that there was understatement of sale consideration. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of ITAT Jodhpur Bench decision in the case of Meghraj Baid Vs. ITO (114 TTJ 841 vide order dated 14.2.2008) for the proposition that if the Assessing Officer did not agree with the explanation of the assessee with regard to lower consideration disclosed by him, he should refer the matter to the DVO for getting market rate established as on the date of sale to arrive at correct sale consideration. 9. Upon careful considerati…

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

…on 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 neither decided nor required the assessee to submit any evidence or clarif…