Rs 80,63,610/- in C Block Vasant Vihar. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri

255 CTR 107High Court2013#10681 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 55ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 55asection 54esection 54ecsection 13(2)long-term capital assetcircle ratesection 55section 53asection 53within four yearsfresh tangible material

Judgments citing Rs 80,63,610/- in C Block Vasant Vihar. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri

PREM LATA GUPTA ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

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

ITA 1422/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Prem Lata Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-5/2A, Opp Cc Colony, Income Tax, Rana Pratap Bagh, North Delhi Central Circle Pin: 1100 07 Karnal. Pan: Aadpl3023F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Pawan GargFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(6)

…assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Raman Kumar Suri reported in (2013) 255 CTR 107 had held that the valuation done by the registered valuer is with regard to a specific property and the same takes into account its various advantages and disadvantages, all of which would influence the valuation of property. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that the valuation done by an empanelled registered valuer of the Income Tax…

JASWIN KAUR SETHI ,GURGAON vs. DCIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21 Jaswin Kaur Sethi, Vs Dcit, 218, Regency Park, International Taxation, Dlf Phase Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Enmps7327R

For Appellant: Ms Meenal Goyal CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55(2)(b)

…assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Raman Kumar Suri reported in (2013) 255 CTR 107 had held that the valuation done by the registered valuer is with regard to a specific property and the same takes into account its various advantages and disadvantages, all of which would influence the valuation of property. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that the valuation done by an empanelled registered valuer of the Income Tax…

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

…assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Raman Kumar Suri reported in (2013) 255 CTR 107 had held that the valuation done by the registered valuer is with regard to a specific property and the same takes into account its various advantages and disadvantages, all of which would influence the valuation of property. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that I.T.A No. 1537/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 9 Kailash Jagdish Sachdev…

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

…assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Raman Kumar Suri reported in (2013) 255 CTR 107 had held that the valuation done by the Page 39 of 53 registered valuer is with regard to a specific property and the same takes into account its various advantages and disadvantages, all of which would influence the valuation of property. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that the valuation done by an empanelled registered valuer of…

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

…assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Raman Kumar Suri reported in (2013) 255 CTR 107 had held that the valuation done by the Page 39 of 53 registered valuer is with regard to a specific property and the same takes into account its various advantages and disadvantages, all of which would influence the valuation of property. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that the valuation done by an empanelled registered valuer of…

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

…assessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Raman Kumar Suri reported in (2013) 255 CTR 107 had held that the valuation done by the Page 39 of 53 registered valuer is with regard to a specific property and the same takes into account its various advantages and disadvantages, all of which would influence the valuation of property. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that the valuation done by an empanelled registered valuer of…

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

…ssessee, rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the valuation, order is invalid and the report of the registered valuer shall be accepted. 5.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Raman Kumar Suri reported in (2013) 255 CTR 107 had held that the valuation done by the registered valuer is with regard to a specific property and the same takes into account its various advantages and disadvantages, all of which would influence the valuation of property. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that the valuation done by an empanelled registered valuer of the Income…

ASST CIT 14(1), MUMBAI vs. ARPITA S. BAJLA, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6098/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 133(6)

…a duplex flat. The layout plan of the said flat and letter of the builder are sufficient proof that the said flats are joined together and are a single residential unit. On perusal of the order of the Jurisdiction High Court in CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri [2013] 255 CTR 107 and the Special Bench of the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in ITO-19(3)-4, Mumbai v Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri [2007] 292 ITR (AT) 1/[2007] 14 SOT 394 (Mum.) (SB) held that entering into two separate agreements is no ground to hold them as two separate residential houses and disallowing the benefit of section 54F. I find that 11 Ms. Arpita S. Bajla the view o…

PRIYA RANJAN PANDIT,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2481/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2481/DEL/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Priya Ranjan Pandit, v. ACIT, Circle-33(1), 67, Paschimi Marg, New Delhi. GF, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: ANYPP 0259R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 19 12 2018 Date of pronouncement: 28 02 2019 O R D E R Per AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 31.01.2017…

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…iamma 331 ITR 211 (Karn.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, strongly defended the impugned order by placing reliance upon the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri ((supra)) and CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri 255 CTR 107 (Bom.). It was contended that Flat No.1502 is situated in the same building on 15th Floor, therefore, deduction is not allowable as per the provision of section 54F of the Act, only one unit/a house is to be allowed. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the a…