How many judgments cite Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward (185 ITD 433), spanning 2022 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 56(2)(vii)(b), Section 56(2)(x), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 144C(13).

Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward

185 ITD 433Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#7719 most cited

What is Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward authority for?

For the purpose of determining income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) or 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value or fair market value of immovable property is to be considered as on the date of payment made by the assessee towards booking of the property, where an agreement for purchase and payment of consideration has been made prior to the date of registration.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO · Section 56(2)(vii)(b) · Section 56(2)(x)(b) · stamp duty value · fair market value · date of agreement · date of payment · immovable property · consideration · booking of flat

Sections most often in play

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)Section 56(2)(x)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 56(2)(x)(b)section 56(2)(vii)(b)section 43ca section 56(2)(x)section 56(2)(vii)section 43c section 155 stamp duty value section 56(2)section 2(47)section 50c fair market value

Judgments citing Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward

Cherie Tandon Saldahna, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Mumbai

ITA 6576/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

…Ward-1(3)(1)ITA No. 1886/M/2019 dtd. 28/10/2020, (Mum.) (Trib.): Date of registration irrelevant for Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) as substantial obligation discharged on date of agreement. (b) Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO Ward 1(2) ITA No. 1106/JP/2018dtd. 19/08/2020, [185 ITD 433 (Jaipur - Trib.)] Where assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat (c) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v/s ITO Ward - 6(2), Pune ITA No.…

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

…d, the transaction was done at value more than the SDV applicable in 2009 and hence this is covered by the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). The case of the appellant on this point is covered by the decision in 7 the case of Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO 185 ITD 433 (Jaipur Trib.). ii. As regards the incremental area, it needs to be noted that the transaction was made at Rs. 80,907/- per Sq. Meter as against Stamp Duty Value of Rs. 76,565/- per Sq. Meter and therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be applied for the incremental area of 49.06 Sq. Meters. 12. It was further submitted that wit…

Rameshchandra Chhabildas Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3520/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…v. ITO for A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No. 433/Kol/2021, 4 Rameshchandra Chhabildas Jhaveri  T. Babu Reddy v. ITO for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 1028/Hyd/2016,  Poonam Ramesh Sahajwani v. ITO for A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No. 2252/Mum/2019,  Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO (185 ITD 433),  Parth Dashrath Gandhi v. ACIT for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No. 1990/Mum/2022 4. The ld AR of the assessee submits that in the series of decision on similar set of fact wherein assessee has paid part consideration in pursuance of agreement/allotment letter, the benefit of first and second proviso to section 50C or 56(2)(x)(b) has been allowed in…

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

…- 1(3) (1) ITA No. 1886/M/2019 dtd. 28/10/2020, (Mum.) (Trib.): Date of registration irrelevant for Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) as substantial obligation discharged on date of agreement. b) Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO Ward-1(2) ITA No. 1106/JP/2018 dtd. 19/08/2020, [185 ITD 433 (Jaipur-Trib.)] Where assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of P a g e | 11 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat e) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodik…

Rakeshkumar Shitalprasad Shukla, Goregaon East vs. Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1855/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

…ard-1(3)(1)ITA No. 1886/M/2019 dtd. 28/10/2020, (Mum.) (Trib.): Date of registration irrelevant for Sec 56(2)(vii) (b) as substantial obligation discharged on date of agreement. b) Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO Ward 1(2) ITA No. 1106/JP/2018 dtd. 19/08/2020, [185 ITD 433 (Jaipur - Trib.)] Where assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat c) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v/s ITO Ward 6(2), Pune ITA No 1747…

Smt. Kajari Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-29(1), Kolktat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 50(2)(X)Section 56Section 56(2)(X)

…d-1(3)(1)ITA No. 1886/M/ 2019 dtd. 28/10/2020, (Mum.) (Trib.): Date of registration irrelevant for Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) as substantial obligation discharged on date of agreement. b) Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO Ward - 1(2) ITA No. 1106/JP/2018 dtd. 19/08/2020, [185 ITD 433 (Jaipur - Trib.)] Where assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat c) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v/s ITO Ward 6(2), Pune ITA No. 174…

Valukko Infrastrusture Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

Smt. Pinki Chetan Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3629/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare, DR

Section 2Section 56(2)(x)

Sulochana Saijan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 557/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.AR

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

…rd-1(3)(1)ITA No. 1886/M/2019 dtd. 28/10/2020, (Mum.) (Trib.): Date of registration irrelevant for Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) as substantial obligation ndischarged on date of agreement. b) Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO Ward - 1(2) ITA No. 1106/JP/2018dtd. 19/08/2020, [185 ITD 433 (Jaipur - Trib.)] Where assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat 17 | P a g e c) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v/s ITO Ward - 6(2),…

Swati Atul Kadakia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleswati Atul Kadakia V. Income Tax Officer – 16(3)(1) Room No. 447 1302, Vasant Aradhana Tower Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpk8725D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…- 1(3)(1)ITA No. 1886/M/ 2019 dtd. 28/10/2020, (Mum.) (Trib.): Date of registration irrelevant for Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) as substantial obligation discharged on date of agreement. b. Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO Ward - 1(2) ITA No. 1106/JP/2018 dtd. 19/08/2020, [185 ITD 433 (Jaipur - Trib.)] Page No. | 15 Swati Atul Kadakia Where assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat c. Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v…

Qamruddin Raffiddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-26(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2067/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2067/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Qamruddin Raffiuddin Siddiqui, E-102, 1St Floor, Ansa “E” Inds. Premises Co.Op. Soc. Ltd. Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Baqps-6109-F ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(1), Kautilaya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ketan Vajani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vranda U Matkari सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari

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

…even if the provisions of section 56(2)(x) are applied, the assessee is protected by 1st proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submits that the Tribunal in the case of Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO, 185 ITD 433 (Jaipur - Trib) has held that where assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of flat and had made payment at the time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property is to be considered as on the date of payment made at the time of booking of flat. 5. Ms. Vranda U Matkari representing the Department veh…

Parth Dashrath Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, NFAC., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of above

ITA 1990/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14Section 155Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

…1(3)(1)ITA No. 1886/M/ 2019 dtd. 28/10/2020, (Mum.) (Trib.): Date of registration irrelevant for Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) as substantial obligation discharged on date of agreement. b) Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO Ward - 1(2) ITA No. 1106/JP/2018 dtd. 19/08/2020, [185 ITD 433 (Jaipur - Trib.)] Where assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat c) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v/s ITO Ward - 6(2), Pune ITA No.…

Mr. Sajjanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no-4 is also allowed with a direction to the A

ITA 56/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Sajjanraj Mehta C/O. M. Mehta & Co., Shop No. 19, Palamsojal Building, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aabpm9430B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-21(3)(2) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Singh Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje

Section 234BSection 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

…1(3) (1) ITA No. 1886/M/2019 dtd. 28/10/2020, (Mum.) (Trib.): Date of registration irrelevant for Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) as substantial obligation discharged on date of agreement. b) Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO Ward - 1(2) ITA No. 1106/JP/2018 dtd. 19/08/2020, [185 ITD 433 (Jaipur - Trib.)] Where assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat c) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v/s ITO Ward - 6(2), Pune ITA No. 1…

Parasmal Champalal Bamboli, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 580/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parasmal Champalal Bamboli, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No. C/O Sarvodaya Vastra Bhandar, Ramgiri Building, Near Natraj Vs. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Cinema Chembur, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400071. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Aafpb 2058 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Jacinta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…can be perceived in the light of the decision of Co-ordinate Benches in (i) Siraj Ahmed Jamalbhai Bora v. ITO Ward-1(3)(1) [ITA No. 1886/M/2019 dated 28.10.2020, (Mum) (Trib.), (ii) Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward-1(2), ITA No. 1106/JP/2018 dated 19.08.202, 185 ITD 433 (Jaipur-Trib.) and (iii) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v. ITO Ward 6(2), Pune, ITA No. 1747/PN/2018 dated 30.04.2019 (Pune) (Trib.). 4.3 The Ld. counsel asserted that the action of the Pr. CIT, on the contrary, suffered from error of law in as much as he has adopted the market value of the property with reference to financial year 2014-15 when the…