How many judgments cite Rajpal Mehta HUF v. ACIT?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite Rajpal Mehta HUF v. ACIT (181 ITD 185), spanning 2024 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rajpal Mehta HUF v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 115U, Section 14A, Section 244A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 36(1)(vii).

Rajpal Mehta HUF v. ACIT

181 ITD 185Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2020#5450 most cited

What is Rajpal Mehta HUF v. ACIT authority for?

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act is curative and declaratory in nature, thus retrospective in its application.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rajpal Mehta HUF v. ACIT · Section 50C · third proviso · retrospective · curative · declaratory · stamp duty valuation

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 115U Section 14A Section 244A Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80ab section 70(2)section 54e section 80m section 10(15)section 10(33)section 14a(1)section 54ec section 36(1)(viii)long-term capital asset section 111a

Judgments citing Rajpal Mehta HUF v. ACIT

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

…n 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) HDFC Bank Ltd. 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

…tion 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made between the va…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

ITA 2597/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

…C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature:\n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum)\n\ni. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum)\n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol)\n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del)\n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2049/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…o section 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22.3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third pr…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2047/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

…50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature: \ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n79 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnot…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2046/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…ion 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made between the…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1890/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

…n 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third proviso to Section 50C, comparison has to be made between the…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4983/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

…tion 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective\nin nature:\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum)\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587\n(Mum)\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185\n(Kol)\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del)\n\n\n78\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21\n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of\nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is\nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We\nnote th…

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2862/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoca

…ion 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 78 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that i…

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 2861/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

…of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\ni i. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum)\n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol)\n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\n78 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 2609/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

…of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\n78 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We…

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground so raised for Assessment \nYear 2004-05 is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2326/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

…of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\n78 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

ITA 2093/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

…of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\nii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We \nnote…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 1

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 1

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…o section 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 78 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in the third…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 1

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 1

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…tion 50C(1) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective in nature: i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) ii. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 (Mum) iii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 (Kol) iv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) 79 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of Rs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is higher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We note that in…

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

…) of the Act being curative and declaratory is retrospective \nin nature: \n\ni. Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum) \n\ni. Rajpal Mehta HUF vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1587 \n(Mum) \n\niii. Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 185 \n(Kol) \n\niv. Amprapali Cinema vs. ACIT [2021] 196 ITD 36 (Del) \n\n79 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n22. 3. Thus, applying 110% to the consideration received of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- the value comes to Rs.51,86,14,305/- which is \nhigher than the value of Rs.51,79,13,000/- determined by ld. DVO. We…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2