How many judgments cite Rahul Constructions v. DCIT?

16 judgments on BharatTax cite Rahul Constructions v. DCIT (38 DTR 19), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Rahul Constructions v. DCIT

38 DTR 19Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#7005 most cited

What is Rahul Constructions v. DCIT authority for?

Section 43CA of the Income-tax Act is not applicable where the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation is less than 10%. The addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of property valuation is deleted if the stamp duty value is not the prevailing market price, as evidenced by DVO's valuation.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Rahul Constructions v. DCIT · 38 DTR 19 · section 43CA · sale consideration · stamp duty valuation · difference less than 10% · DVO valuation · market price

Issues it is cited on

section 50c(1)full value of consideration date of transfer stamp duty value section 48 section 50c section 50 fair market value long term capital gains section 43 section 37 long term capital gain

Judgments citing Rahul Constructions v. DCIT

Pritam Singh Charan Singh Gujjar, Nagpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.406/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Pretam Singh Charan Singh Gujjar Roureka Nagpur Roadways ……………. Appellant 38, Durga Complex, C.A. Road Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AEDPG2548E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–4, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Bhavesh Moryani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 03/09/2024 Date of Order – 18/09/2024 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 21/11/2023, passed by th…

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOL- KATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16 Tata Consumer Products Lim- The Deputy Commissioner of ited, (erstwhile Tata Global Bev- Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Kol- V erages Ltd.) kata - 700069 Vs 1, Bishop Lefroy Rd., Kolkata - 700020 (PAN: AABCT0602K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Sriram Sashdari, AR Respondent by : Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2024 O R D…

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

M/S Kiran Sanran Associates, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

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

ITA 791/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Naveen RanderFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 43C

…9,86,10,565 68 33,85,80,176 14 9,02,79,805 8 4,67,15,104 7. Referring to the above, he submitted that in the subsequent submissions the assessee relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction vs. DCIT reported in 38 DTR 19 has explained to the Assessing Officer that the provisions of section 43CA of the Act are not applicable where the difference between the sale consideration and the valuation as per stamp duty valuation is less than 10%. So far as the sale of flats where the difference is more than 10% is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to t…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…CIT I.T.A No. 7545/Mum/2014(Mum Trib) • Sita Baikhetan Vs. ITO (2016) 181 TTJ 0549: (2016) 142 DTR 0122: (2016) 050 ITR (Trib)0196(Jaipur-Trib) • Surendra S. Gupta Vs. ACIT(2018) 170 ITD 732 (Mum Trib) • Rahul Constructions Vs. DCIT(Pune Trib. Bench B) (2010) 38 DTR 19(Pune)(Trib) • Krishna Enterprises Vs. ACIT(2017) 146 DTR 73(Mum Trib) • ITO Vs. LGW Limited (Kol. Trib) (ITA No. 267/Kol/2013 dt. 07/10/2015 15.3 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no justification in sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of valuation of the property as such the provisions of Section 115BBE were…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Surat vs. Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 373/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.373/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi V Circle-3(1), Room No.112, 1Str Floor, Diam Jewels, 7/4155, Sunder S. Anavil Business Center, Adajan Char Rasta, Sadan, Galemandi, Suthar Faliya, Surat Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxps 9521 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 269USection 50CSection 52

…cision of Delhi Tribunal in Amrapali Cinema [2021] 127 taxmann.com 376 (Delhi). 7.The ld.AR for the assessee further submits that the fair market value (FMV) determined by DVO is based on estimation and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Rahul Construction (38 DTR 19 Pune) held that difference between the sale consideration of property shown by the assessee and ITA No.373/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Sh Dhanesh M Sanghvi FMV determined by the DVO being less than 10% the AO was not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for sale consideration disclosed by assessee. In Smt Sita Bai Khetan181 TTJ 549…

Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, Surat vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, The Income Tax Officer, Block No.4, Krishna Park Society, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat. Vs Shyam Dham Road, Nan Varachha, Surat – 395006. Pan: Achpb 9761 A Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 56

…ision of Delhi Tribunal in Amrapali Cinema [2021] 127 taxmann.com 376 (Delhi). 7. The ld.AR for the assessee further submits that the fair market value (FMV) determined by DVO is based on estimation and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Rahul Construction (38 DTR 19 Pune) held that difference between the sale consideration of property shown by the assessee and FMV determined by the DVO being less than 10% the AO was not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for sale consideration disclosed by assessee. In Smt Sita Bai Khetan181 TTJ 549 (JP), the Tribunal held that difference between the val…

ACIT-16(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Vishwang Y Desai, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 4445/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4445/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit-16(3) Shri Vishwang Y. Desai 446, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Lentin Chambers Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Dalal Street, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpd-4371-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Parikh-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…refore, the additions were not justified. Reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. V/s CIT (177 CTR 232) as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Rahul Constructions V/s DCIT (38 DTR 19) besides other decisions which have already been enumerated in the impugned order. Resultantly, the addition so made by Ld. AO was deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, it is quite evident that the stamp duty value of ₹82.27 Crores w…

Prafulla Shantilal Kothari, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7 (3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora &For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…e report of DVO. He submitted that the Courts and Tribunals have held that liberal approach be adopted when the difference is marginal. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. DCIT reported in (2010) 38 DTR 19 (Pune). He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of M/s. Radhika Sales Corporation Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1474/PUN/2016 order dated 16.11.2018. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bimla Singh Vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 71 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sadhna Gup…

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1821/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1821/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh, Plot No.80A, Behind Essar Petrol Pump, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422 007 PAN : ADWPD4520B …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Nashik. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue by : Shri M.K. Verma सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 12.12.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the a…

Asaram Shankar Perkar, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2704/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as 199 ITR 530 has approved tolerance limit of 15% variation in estimating sale value. The ld. AR submitted that the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 38 DTR 19 allowed relief to assessee where the difference between the sale consideration shown by the assessee and the fair market 3 ITA No. 2704/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 value determined by the DVO was less than 10%. The ld. AR to further substantiate his contentions with respect to the tolerance limit for making the addition relied on the decision of Hon’b…

B.S.Sanjay (HUF), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1141/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, IRS (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORESHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2011-12 Shri B.S. Sanjay [HUF], # 501, Salapuria Aristocracy, No. 76, 14th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, J.P. Nagar, Vs. Ward –3 (4), Bangalore – 560 078. Bangalore. PAN: AABHB9462J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, IRS (DR) Date of hearing : 01.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the o…

Mehrunnisa Rehaman Mujavar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 3Section 50CSection 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…Learned AR submitted that the difference between the value determined by stamp valuation authority and value declared in the sale agreement is less than 5%. He submitted that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal has held in the case of Rahul Construction Vs. DCIT (38 DTR 19) that the difference of 5% may be ignored for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. However, we noticed that the decision so rendered by Pune Bench was in respect of value determined by DVO and not by stamp authority. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee cannot take support of the above said decision. Since the impugned addition has b…

Krishna Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5402/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Krishna Enterprises, Vs. Addl. Cit – 12(1), Mumbai 10Th 103, Floor, Maker Chamber No.Vi, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk2860J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ins. In support of the proposition that where difference between the value declared by assessee vis-a-vis valuation arrived at by the DVO is only 5.5%, the same can be ignored, reliance was placed on the decision of Rahul Constructions vs. DCIT (Pune) (Trib.) 38 DTR 19 (2010) ITA No.1543/Pn/2007 7. It was further argued by Mr. Shashank Dandu learned AR that provisions of Section 50C are not applicable to the facts of case in the A.Y.2007-08 under consideration. He invited our attention to the fact that unregistered property was sold on 07/08/2006 which means, since the unregistered property was sold before the cl…

Anthony John Pereira, Palghar vs. Addl CIT RG 4, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1103/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekhar &For Respondent: Shri B.D.Naik

Section 2Section 2(14)Section 50C

…ction 32A( 4) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958, whereas the 10% difference in the value stamp duty value and agreement value is allowed. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon. Pune Bench in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 38 DTR 19 wherein the Tribunal directed the assessing officer to take the consideration at Rs.70 lakhs against the estimated value by valuation officer at RS.75,76,712/- as the value of the property so estimated that a difference of +-10% which is because of the opinion of the individual valuation officer. No one is expected to value the property accurately…