Mrs. Susamma Paulose v. JCIT

79 TTJ 573Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#10783 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54esection 55asection 54ecsection 13(2)long-term capital assetsection 53asection 53within four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55circle rate

Judgments citing Mrs. Susamma Paulose v. JCIT

UPAID SYSTEMS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3460/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 9(1)(vi)

…Vs. DCIT, ITA No.04/Ahd./2012 (Ahd. Trib.) affirmed by Gujarat High Court in [2014] 221 Taxman 158 9. CIT Vs. Manjulaben M. Unadkat, 229 Taxman 531 (Gujarat) 10. Shri Rajendra H. Seth Vs. ACIT, ITA No1495/Ahd/2007 (Ahd. Trib.) 11. Sosamma Paulose Vs. JCIT, 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) 12. Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO, [2018] 172 ITD 571 (Jaipur) 5.2 Per contra, learned CIT(DR) strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). He submitted, the expert from whom the assessee has obtained the valuation report may be having some knowledge of telecom sector bu…

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

…rred by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to accept the report of the registered valuer regarding the fair market value of the land as claimed by the assessee. ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Mrs. Susamma Paulose Vs JCIT reported in 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) on identical facts held as under: ".....A registered valuer is competent to value properties as per the provisions of the IT Act and Rules made there under. The AO is not justified in brushing aside the report of the registered valuer without pointing out any specific reason for that. The AD did not have any I.T.A No. 1537/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2…

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

…rred by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to accept the report of the registered valuer regarding the fair market value of the land as claimed by the assessee. ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Mrs. Susamma Paulose Vs JCIT reported in 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) on identical facts held as under: ".....A registered valuer is competent to value properties as per the provisions of the IT Act and Rules made there under. The AO is not justified in brushing aside the report of the registered valuer without pointing out any specific reason for that. The AD did not have any materials with him to rebut the…

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

…rred by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to accept the report of the registered valuer regarding the fair market value of the land as claimed by the assessee. ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Mrs. Susamma Paulose Vs JCIT reported in 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) on identical facts held as under: ".....A registered valuer is competent to value properties as per the provisions of the IT Act and Rules made there under. The AO is not justified in brushing aside the report of the registered valuer without pointing out any specific reason for that. The AD did not have any materials with him to rebut the…

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

…rred by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to accept the report of the registered valuer regarding the fair market value of the land as claimed by the assessee. ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Mrs. Susamma Paulose Vs JCIT reported in 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) on identical facts held as under: ".....A registered valuer is competent to value properties as per the provisions of the IT Act and Rules made there under. The AO is not justified in brushing aside the report of the registered valuer without pointing out any specific reason for that. The AD did not have any materials with him to rebut the…

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

…the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to accept the report of the registered valuer regarding 10 Assessment year 2011-12 the fair market value of the land as claimed by the assessee. ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Mrs. Susamma Paulose Vs JCIT reported in 79 TTJ 573 (Coch.) on identical facts held as under: ".....A registered valuer is competent to value properties as per the provisions of the IT Act and Rules made there under. The AO is not justified in brushing aside the report of the registered valuer without pointing out any specific reason for that. The AD did not have any materials with him to rebut t…

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)

…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, particularly having regard to the valuation report fur…

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)

…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, particularly having regard to the valuation report fur…

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)

…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, particularly having regard to the valuation report fur…

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)

…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, particularly having regard to the valuation report fur…

Mrs. Susamma Paulose v. JCIT (79 TTJ 573) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax