← All Phrases

“Section 155(15)”

Section References (mined)Section 155Section 155(15)15 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 155(15) is Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO (310 ITR 31), cited in 66 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 155(15)

Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO
310 ITR 31 · 2009 · High Court
66
citing judgments

When an assessee presents a registered valuer's report for an asset, the Assessing Officer, if forming an opinion that the value claimed is less than the fair market value, must refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A(a). The AO cannot unilaterally reject the registered valuer's report or resort to Section 55A(b) in such a scenario.

Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
150 ITR 643 · 1984 · High Court
23
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.

CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Inld. Vs. CIT
45 Taxmann.com 356 · 2014 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot reduce the value adopted by the assessee based on a Registered Valuer's report if the value is claimed in accordance with the Registered Valuer's estimate. A reference to the DVO for ascertaining fair market value as on 1.4.1981 was not competent prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012.

Judgments citing Section 155(15)

Mukesh Vaikunthlal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4669/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee GujrathiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 14(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 54

Accordingly, the capital gains income was computed at INR.84,27,058/- by the Assessing Officer vide Order dated 10/09/2018 passed under Section 155(15) of the Act in the following manner: Amount (in Amount (in INR) INR) FMV as per Order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 7,03,00,000/- 147 Less

Bimla Devi Agrawal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

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

ITA 1690/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(15)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Debdas Ghosh, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 1062/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 155(15)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

impugned assessment order the Ld. Assessing Officer had inter alia stated that the order was being passed subject to amendment under section 155(15) as and when the valuation report is received from valuation officer. Therefore, Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored back ... properties purchased by the assessee and passed the assessment order, subject to I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh. amendment under section 155(15) as and when the valuation report was received from the Valuation Officer and the income from business was assessed

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO- Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 528/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 527/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 526/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Surendra Chimandas Kanjani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41 (4), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4143/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(x)

considered as invalid or illegal or bad in law. I, therefore, confirm the assessment order, subject to necessary modification in terms of section 155(15) of the Act and dismiss the appeal of the appellant on all grounds raised. In the result, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. Being

Ajay Kamalkishor Rathi, Amravati vs. I.T.O. - Ward - 4, Amravati

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

ITA 329/NAG/2025[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Swetanshu Dev, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 155(15)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016

Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 740/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) 101, Shakuntal Appt Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Cn Vidhyalaya Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Aarpb 6394 H (Appellant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2025

For Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 64

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Mr Vivek Omprakash Abrol, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-22(1), Mumbai

ITA 5883/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol, Dy. Cit-Cir-22(1), 1, Neumec Height, Sant Chokha (Order Passed By Erstwhile Ao, Asst. Vs. Mela Road, Vile Parle (East), Cit-Cir-22(3), Mumbai), Mumbai-400057. Piramal Chambers, 3Rd Floor, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aabpa 2313 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shreyash Shah/For Respondent: 29/01/2025

that the rectification of the assessment under submission that the rectification of the assessment under submission that the rectification of the assessment under Section 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect Section 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect Section 155(15) required ... December 2017 was subject to rectification under 23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under 23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under Section 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the Section 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the Section 155(15

Shamoon Ahmed Mulla, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6070/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Akash Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer and provisions of section 50C and section 155(15) shall apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) of clause (vii) of sub-section

Naresh Jeramdas Idnani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1.1. to 1.3. raised by the Appellant are allowed while all the grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous

ITA 3787/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta / Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

Attention in this regard is invited to Section 155 of the Act which contains provisions relating to amendments in respect specified completed assessments. Section 155(15) of the Act reads as under: “Section 155(15) Where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain arising from the transfer ... previous year in which the order revising the value was passed in that appeal or revision or reference.]” 11. A perusal of Section 155(15) of the Act shows that the provisions contained therein permit the Assessing Officer to amend an order of assessment for the purpose of computing capital

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

report to him.‖ 17. Thus no reference to Valuation Officer by Assessing Officer. It is worthwhile to note that in order under section 155(15) of the Act, the 18 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022 Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of assessee at ` 112 lakh in set aside proceedings. The learned

Shri Rajdeep Singh Chimni, Chandigarh vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(15)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

valuation. The assessee was also provided liberty keeping in view of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with Section 155(15) of the Act that necessary amendment in the assessment order shall be made u/s 155(15) after the receipt of the report

Dilip Jaikumar Chandak, Amravati vs. ITO Ward-1, Amravati

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

ITA 48/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Maratha
Section 143(3)Section 155(15)Section 250

value of ` 7,99,000 adopted by the assessee. Consequently, the A.O. rectified the order passed under section 143(3) in terms of section 155(15) by adopting the fair market value determined by the DVO and reduced the indexed cost of acquisition of the property from