What is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the valuation of property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation or if there is a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration and the guideline value. This reference is mandatory, even if not explicitly requested by the assessee, to ensure a realistic fair market value and avoid injustice.

How many judgments cite Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT?

159 judgments on BharatTax cite Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 50C, Section 143(3), Section 50C(2), Section 147, Section 250, Section 144.

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83)

Siddharth Pandarinath Bhadale, Pune vs. ITO, Pne-W-(58)(91), Pune

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1465/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)

…ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4.6 We also direct the ld.CIT(A) to refer the issue of Valuation to DVO as held by The Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT 372 ITR 83, the relevant paragraph is as under : “6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the DVO, contemplated under s. 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub-…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hubballi vs. Smt. Sheela Prasannakumar, Chitradurga

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

ITA 1464/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153BSection 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Assessment Year Appellant Respondent ITA No.1463/Bang/2024 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Hubballi. Shri. Gowdara M. Lingaraju, Partner: Sri Prasanna Traders, APMC Yard, Bheemsamudra, Chitradurga, Karnataka - 577 520. PAN: ΑΕΥPM 5850 Q ITA No.1464/Bang/2024 2018-19 -do- Smt. Sheela Prasannakumar M/s. Sri Prasanna traders, APMC Yard, Bheemsamudra, Chitradurga, Chitradurga - 577 520, Karnataka. PAN: ACXPP4532 В Revenue by Assessee by : Ms. Nandini Das, C…

Ajab Singh, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Noida

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 3659/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144Section 147Section 50C(2)

…s. 6 lakhs than having ascertained the actual cost of acquisition in the assessee’s hands. This is indeed coupled with the fact that he had also not made any reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) which has been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). I, therefore, deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to remit the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 19.12.2024. (SATBEER SINGH…

Maya Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Ghaziabad

ITA 58/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…mits that the impugned addition has been rightly made in assessee’s hands on account of her non-cooperation throughout. 4. Faced with the situation; we invited Revenue’s attention to both section 50C(2) of the Act as well as Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Kolkata), wherein their lordships have held that reference to DVO is mandatory even if no such objection is raised from the taxpayer’s side. We do not see any material in the case files indicating any such reference made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment findings wherein he has assessed the assessee for her share without even granting in…

Maya Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Ghaziabad

ITA 57/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…mits that the impugned addition has been rightly made in assessee’s hands on account of her non-cooperation throughout. 4. Faced with the situation; we invited Revenue’s attention to both section 50C(2) of the Act as well as Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Kolkata), wherein their lordships have held that reference to DVO is mandatory even if no such objection is raised from the taxpayer’s side. We do not see any material in the case files indicating any such reference made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment findings wherein he has assessed the assessee for her share without even granting in…

Baban Rajaram Shahane, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

ITA 1357/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Baban Rajaram Shahane, V The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.3, Saraf Bazar, S Ward-3(1), Nashik. Govind Complex, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101. Pan: Aswps1504M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024

Section 144Section 250Section 50C

…he said valuation was challenged during appellate proceedings, the addition u/s 50C confirmed by the CIT(A) without even referring the matter to DVO was in direct contradiction to the law laid down by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT [372 ITR 83]. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the govt, valuation of the land as on the date of entering agreement to sale dated 10.06.2015 was Rs.80,23,000 and advance of Rs.20 lakhs was also received through banking channel before entering the said regt. agreement and therefore, the govt, valuation for the purposes of s…

Bhakthavalsalam Ramdas, Palakkad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 95/COCH/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhbhakthavalsalam Ramdas Income Tax Officer 01 M.R. Raman Chettair Son Ward - 2, Palakkad Vs. T.B. Road, Palakkad 678014 [Pan: Acmpr3451L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…nce to the DVO before the tribunal for the first time, it was his mandatory onus to object to the stamp valuation during the course of assessment itself. We don’t find any merit in the Revenue’s instant last argument going by Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT [2014] 373 ITR 83 (Cal) holding that section 50C(2) reference to the DVO; adopted in the 3rd proviso to sec.56(2)(vii)(b) is indeed mandatory in nature and is not dependent on the concerned taxpayer raising such objections before the Assessing Officer. 4. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to reexamine the entire issu…

Saramma Mathew, Ernakulam ( Presently Staying at Usa) vs. DCIT, Circle International Taxation, Kochi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 669/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Saramma Mathew The Deputy Commissioner Of 5235 Margaret’S Place V. Income-Tax Brent Wood 370270 Usa (International Taxation) Pan :Domps1759R. Kochi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50CSection 50C(2)(b)Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Saramma Mathew The Deputy Commissioner of 5235 Margaret’s Place v. Income-tax Brent Wood 370270 USA (International Taxation) PAN :DOMPS1759R. Kochi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 arises against the DCIT, Circle International Taxation,…

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

…of reference to the DVO, I have gone through the submissions of the appellant as well as the citations relied upon by him, in this regard. The appellant has relied upon the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) in which a similar issue has been dealt with albeit the scales of consideration differed by more than 660 times! The surrounding conditions and the various market factors would, correspondingly vary. However, the basic principles of legal reasoning enunciated by the Hon'ble Court would nevertheless apply and are discussed here. The cont…

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

…of reference to the DVO, I have gone through the submissions of the appellant as well as the citations relied upon by him, in this regard. The appellant has relied upon the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) in which a similar issue has been dealt with albeit the scales of consideration differed by more than 660 times! The surrounding conditions and the various market factors would, correspondingly vary. However, the basic principles of legal reasoning enunciated by the Hon'ble Court would nevertheless apply and are discussed here. The cont…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel vs. Balaji Realtors, Panvel

Appeal is partly allowed for

ITA 794/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 55A

…tunities of hearing. 6.1. Learned counsel at this stage reiterated the fact that no DVO had been appointed going by the mandates of sec.43CA (2) and (3) of the Act. We find force in the assessee’s instant plea in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) (HC) wherein their lordships’ hold in the context of sec.50C, applicable mutatis mutandis herein, that such a reference is indeed mandatory even if the assessee concerned does not raise any such plea before the 14 ITA.No.794/PUN./2023 departmental authorities. We thus direct the learned assessing authority to make a statutory reference t…

Shri Govind Baboorao Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 632/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 49Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…on 49(I)(i) to (iii) of the Act; as the case may be. Learned lower authorities have also not made any statutory reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act despite the fact that the same has been held to be mandatory in nature as per Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal as well as all of his substantive grounds raised herein back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5 Shri Govind Baboorao Rao…

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 108/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.105/Nag./2021 ITA no.106/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) (Assessment Year : 2011–12) ITA no.107/Nag./2021 ITA no.108/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi 365, Krishna Krupa Palace Yadav Samaj Square, C.A. Road ……………. Appellant Gandhibagh, Nagpur 400 002 PAN – AAFPT4557J v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–1(3), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kano…

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 107/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.105/Nag./2021 ITA no.106/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) (Assessment Year : 2011–12) ITA no.107/Nag./2021 ITA no.108/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi 365, Krishna Krupa Palace Yadav Samaj Square, C.A. Road ……………. Appellant Gandhibagh, Nagpur 400 002 PAN – AAFPT4557J v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–1(3), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kano…

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 106/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.105/Nag./2021 ITA no.106/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) (Assessment Year : 2011–12) ITA no.107/Nag./2021 ITA no.108/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi 365, Krishna Krupa Palace Yadav Samaj Square, C.A. Road ……………. Appellant Gandhibagh, Nagpur 400 002 PAN – AAFPT4557J v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–1(3), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kano…

Naresh Vasantraj Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 105/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.105/Nag./2021 ITA no.106/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) (Assessment Year : 2011–12) ITA no.107/Nag./2021 ITA no.108/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi 365, Krishna Krupa Palace Yadav Samaj Square, C.A. Road ……………. Appellant Gandhibagh, Nagpur 400 002 PAN – AAFPT4557J v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–1(3), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kano…

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cicle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 47/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)

…Valuation Officer in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 50C of the Act which is also applicable to section 43CA of the Act. In this context, the counsel placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs. CIT - (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) ITA Nos 46 & 47/Ahd/2024 Sarjan Realities Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 7 2. Kallubhai Budhdhilal Shahu vs. ITO - ITA No. 500 /Srt/2023 3. Narendra Dahyabhai Patel vs. ITO - I.T.A. No. 2087 /Ahd/2013 4. Mahesh A. Vora vs. ITO - ITA No. 2217/Ahd/2016 5. Shri Ashwin C. Shah vs. ITO - WTA.No.25 to 30/Ahd…

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 46/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)

…Valuation Officer in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 50C of the Act which is also applicable to section 43CA of the Act. In this context, the counsel placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs. CIT - (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) ITA Nos 46 & 47/Ahd/2024 Sarjan Realities Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 7 2. Kallubhai Budhdhilal Shahu vs. ITO - ITA No. 500 /Srt/2023 3. Narendra Dahyabhai Patel vs. ITO - I.T.A. No. 2087 /Ahd/2013 4. Mahesh A. Vora vs. ITO - ITA No. 2217/Ahd/2016 5. Shri Ashwin C. Shah vs. ITO - WTA.No.25 to 30/Ahd…

Mohammed Khalid Masud, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 171/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…. ITO in order dated 31.05.2019, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal while referring to the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Court including that of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of “Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT” reported in 372 ITR 83, has held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under such facts and circumstances are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. The relevant part of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under: “8. In the present case, neither, the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has made any efforts to cryst…

Ramsing Himmatsing Rajput, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 601/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramsing Himmatsing Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Rajput, Plot No.17, Usha Bunglow, Near Seven Heven Hotel, Behind Lotus House, Chetna Nagar, Nashik- 422009. Pan : Adrpr2780A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs. 14,25,000 By Taxing The Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.22,25,000 & Actual Sale Consideration Of Rs.8,00,000 Without Appreciating That The Impugned Land Located Near River Bank Was Vulnerable To Floods, It Was Situated Near Cremation

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…ovt. Approved Valuer and therefore, the addition u/s 50C confirmed by the CIT(A) without even referring the matter to DVO in spite of specific request made by assessee was against the law laid down by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT [372 ITR 83] and hence, the said addition may be deleted. 3] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of labour contractor. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 30.09.2015 declaring total income o…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

What is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

Siddharth Pandarinath Bhadale, Pune vs. ITO, Pne-W-(58)(91), Pune

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hubballi vs. Smt. Sheela Prasannakumar, Chitradurga

Ajab Singh, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Noida

Maya Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Ghaziabad

Maya Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Ghaziabad

Baban Rajaram Shahane, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

Bhakthavalsalam Ramdas, Palakkad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

Saramma Mathew, Ernakulam ( Presently Staying at Usa) vs. DCIT, Circle International Taxation, Kochi

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

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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel vs. Balaji Realtors, Panvel

Shri Govind Baboorao Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

Naresh Vasantraj Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cicle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Mohammed Khalid Masud, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata.

Ramsing Himmatsing Rajput, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Nashik