“stamp duty value”

VIJAY KRISHNAJI SAWANT ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvijay Krishnaji Sawant Income Tax Officer-32(2)(1) Vijay Niwas, Ceaser Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Opp. Bombay Cambridge School, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Amboli, Andheri Railway Station S.O., Mumbai-400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aapps 7027 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

such view of the A.O. by submitting that in terms with the first proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act, the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of MOU should be taken for computing capital gain, however, the A.O. was not convinced. Ultimately, he held that since ... respectively. Therefore, the transfer deed could only be executed on 23.02.2011. While registering the transfer deed, the Stamp Valuation Authority has determined the stamp duty value at Rs.2,37,93,000/-, which is the valuation as on the date of registration. However, fact remains the assessee entered into

GIRISH BHALCHANDRA SATHE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

untenable. 3. The CIT(A) failed to apply the first proviso to Section 50C, which mandates adoption of stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement when consideration is received earlier through banking channels. The failure to apply this statutory requirement renders the addition unsustainable ... perused the material available on record. The assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, the stamp duty value of the said property was Rs.36,20,624/-. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice under section

MR. SHRIDHAR GANGARAM ANUMANDALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

without considering the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) dated 27.09.2024. The assessee has further contended that the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value falls within the tolerance limit of 10% as provided under section 56 of the Act, and therefore the addition

SUJATA PRAKASH JAWALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

which means no sale-deed can be executed without the 4 I.T.A. No. 7572/Mum/2025 permissions of Tehsildar/Collector. Assessee, thus submitted that, stamp duty value as on 2010 has to be considered as against value as on the date of registration. 2.2. The assessee also submitted the property card details before ... consideration and Rs.18,36,900/- towards expenses incurred for the purchase of the said property. The Ld.AO, however, considered the difference in the stamp duty value and the actual consideration and added the difference as income in the hands of assessee amounting to Rs.5,04,00,000/-. Aggrieved

BISHNUPRIYA BIJAYCHANDRA MAHANTY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai 204 Plot 13/A Wing Siddhivinayak It-Office, Vashi Railway Vs. Chs, Sector 6, Ghansoli, Navi Station Building, Mumbai 400701, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Authroised Person Add: 218, Ratna High Street, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 380013 Pan No. Btdpm 7308 A Appellant Respondent

Therefore, the Ld.AO considered the investment made the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.AO considered the investment made by the assessee in property along with stamp duty value ee in property along with stamp duty value ee in property along with stamp duty value aggregating to Rs. 1,21,00,254 aggregating ... amount of Rs. 1,14,15,254/- had invested in purchase of immovable had invested in purchase of immovable property and the stamp duty value of Rs. 6,85,000/-, there are 3 co- property and the stamp duty value of Rs. 6,85,000/ property and the stamp duty

ABBAS FAKHRUDDIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

income for the Assessment Year under consideration, however, has purchased an immovable property on 16.02.2017 for a consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-. Stamp duty value of the said property as per stamp duty valuation authority, has been determined according to the SRO at Rs.67,56,275/- and thus the provision

NOORUL HASAN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarnoorul Hasan Shaikh Vs. Ito- Ward 25(3)(1) 4, Laxmi Bhavan, P.D’Mello Room 118, 1St Floor, Road. Kautilya Bhavan, Carnac Bunder, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400001 Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Apaps5077A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya – Advocate Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

making addition of Rs. 20,71,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being difference between the stamp duty value of the property purchased as on the date of registration of the deed (Rs. 90,71,000/-) and the consideration (Rs. 70,00,000/-). 4 6.2 While doing