Muthuraja v. CIT

369 ITR 483High Court2014#12241 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also reported as

37 Taxmann.com 352218 Taxmann 73

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 155 Section 43CA Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 50c(2)section 43c section 43ca stamp duty value section 50c section 50 fair market value commissioner (appeals)section 43 section 154 long term capital gain previous year

Judgments citing Muthuraja v. CIT

ANVIS DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX WARD 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1092/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…apital gains by invoking the provisions of s. 50C(2). There is no dispute insofar as the decision taken by the CIT(A) or by the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 50C of the IT Act would be applicable to the transaction in question. iii) S. Muthuraja vs CIT 369 ITR 483 (Mad) It is seen from the records filed before this Court that the assessee objected to the AO adopting the guide-line value relating to the property sold for the sale consideration of Rs. 25,60,000 as against the guide-line value adopted by the AO at Rs. 39,63,900. In the objection letter filed by the assessee on 15th Dec., 2011, the assessee sp…

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Macrotech Developers Ltd. (MDL) DCIT-7(3), 412, Floor-4, 17G, Room No.655, 6th Floor, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACL1490J Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 17.04.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:…

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

ITO 16(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK R. SHAH, MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ashok Rasiklal Shah, 3-8, 15B, Aruna Niwas, Lady Pochkhanwala Road, Sleater Road, Mumbai - 400007 [PAN: AABPS6466M] ……………… Appellant Income Tax Officer, Vs Ward – 16(2)(4), Mumbai Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 40007 …………… Respondent I.T.O. Ward - 16(2)(4), Mumbai 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 40007 ……………… Appellant Shri Ashok R. Shah, Vs 3-8, 15B, Aruna Niwas, Lady Pochkanwala Road, Sleater Road, Mumbai - 400007 ……………… Respondent [PAN: A AABPS6466M] Nayan Rasiklal Shah, 3-8, 15B…

ASHOK RASIKLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 16(2)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1268/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

VIKRAM SHAH,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 24/PUN/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

…, then the AO cannot make valuation of the property on his own. The appellant also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act, the DVO report is binding on the AO. The appellant relied on the decision in the case of S. Muthuraja Vs. CIT 37 Taxmann.com 352 (Mad). In the same breath, the appellant also contended that once the assessment order was passed pending the receipt of the DVO report, the reference to DVO became invalid. For this, he relied on the decision of Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. 150 ITR 643 (Kol) and decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Vida D'Lima IT A…

HIRANANDANI INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2305/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Hiranandani Industrial Enterprises, The Assistant Commissioner Of 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, F P J Vs. Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Room No. 117, Aayakar Bhavan, 400021 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaafh1372E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A. Karia, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Hiranandani Industrial Enterprises, The Assistant Commissioner of 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, F P J Vs. Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Room no. 117, Aayakar Bhavan, 400021 Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAAFH1372E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Chetan A. Karia, AR Revenue by : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR Date of Hearing : 05/11/2019 Date of pronouncement : 27/12/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by…

SIVASANKARAN UMA,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT PUDUCHERRY CIRCLE, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 2783/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2783/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…y is less than the guideline value, the Assessing Officer has no option except to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. A similar claim of the assessee was allowed by Madras High Court in S. 3 I.T.A. No.2783/Chny/17 Mathuraja v. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 483. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified when there is a mandatory requirement for referring to matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. 5. On the contrary, Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee has not challenged the market value / guideline valu…

UMA REDDY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 5

ITA 2971/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2971/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT

Section 2Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…ce when the assessee made an objection to the Assessing Officer’s action in adopting the provisions of section 50C of the Act in respect of property. He also filed a judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of S. Muthuraja vs CIT [2014] 369 ITR 483 to support the above. 4. After hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the cited decisions before us, we are of the opinion that rejecting the assessee’s objections against adopting the guideline price is not justified without making the impugned property to the valuation ce…