“stamp duty value”

Capital GainsSection 50CSection 50C1,254 judgments

The decision most relied on for stamp duty value is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83), cited in 159 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on stamp duty value

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

372 ITR 83 · 2015 · High Court

159

citing judgments

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.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)

123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT

citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO

187 ITD 738 · 2021 · ITAT

citing judgments

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd.

111 Taxmann.com 94 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Prior to the incorporation of the proviso to section 43CA(1) with effect from 1st April 2019, section 43CA did not envisage any limit regarding the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee for the transfer of immovable property that was stock-in-trade.

Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT

161 ITD 627 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

Dharmashibhai Sonani holds that if a statutory proviso is declaratory and curative, intended to remedy unintended consequences of a main provision, it should be given retrospective effect. This principle applies when determining the effective date of such provisos, including the third proviso to Section 50C(1).

Atul G. Puranik v. ITO

132 ITD 499 · 2011 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a deeming provision, applies only to the transfer of "land or building or both" and therefore does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights.

CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran

429 ITR 97 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

The first and second provisos to Section 50C(1) are retrospective in nature and applicable from the inception of the main section. The third proviso to Section 50C(1) is also retrospective and applies from the same date as the main provision.

P Varghese v. ITO

24 CTR 358 · 1981 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Revenue must prove that the assessee received more consideration than declared when challenging a sale transaction. The declared sale consideration is accepted unless evidence proves otherwise.

Judgments citing stamp duty value

Abdul Majid Muhammed Hussein Tanwar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4063/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

Assessee had no control over the same, e. Since an allotment letter was already issued and the initial payment made in cheque, the stamp duty value as on the date of allotment letter should have been taken for the purpose of section 56 and the Ld. AO erred in taking ... case and in law, the impugned addition of the difference amounting to Rs. 1,39,04,200/- between the purchase consideration and stamp duty value be deleted and it is prayed accordingly. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in levying

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3), New Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

addition, the CIT(A) held that there was a significant difference between the registered consideration of Rs. 2.50 crore and the stamp duty value of Rs. 7.58 crore, which, as held in CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2006) 294 ITR 49 (Mad.)] and K.R. Builders v. ITO [ITA No. 1213/Bang/2016], constituted

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3) New Ward3(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Seema Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) : (I) Misc. Receipts Of Rs.96,000/- In Cash Shown As Gifts Received & Offered To Tax; (Ii) Receipt Of A Gift Of Rs. 5,84,000/- From An Huf, Claimed As Exempt U/S 56(2) Of The Act; & (Iii) Receipts Of Rs.2,99,133/- Shown As Profit From Commodity Trading, Albeit On Off-Market Basis.

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property, — (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value ... property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty

Deb Prasanna Choudhury, Kolkata vs. ADIT/DCIT (It) - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2199/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property,— (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value ... property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty

Gautam Jyoti Co Operative Hsg Society, Girgaon Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1939/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh Adv. and Shivali SFor Respondent: 29.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151ASection 234ASection 250Section 50C

make addition of Rs. 29,75,000/- as the income of the assessee from business or profession and treated the difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration received as to the tune of Rs. 29,66,500/- as addition u/s. 43CA of the Act. On further appeal

Kanchan Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 484/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering that assessee has specifically objected the stamp duty value, therefore confirming addition made U/s. 56(2)(x)(b) * B of Rs. 45,40,70/- without referring matter to DVO on assumption and presumption basis is illegal

Koppal Ramachari Ramesh, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 1937/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri G. Akar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.42,43,470/-. The Department had information that assessee had purchased immovable property for a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- and the stamp duty value was Rs.30,31,900/-. Accordingly, to tax the difference u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act, notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act was issued, calling ... amounting to Rs.3,31,900/-, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, it was submitted that the stamp duty value of the property is only Rs.30,31,900/- and not Rs.32,31,900/-. It was submitted that assessee had inadvertently, in reply to notice u/s.148A

Poonam Singh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5156/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Varun Sharma, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 50C

merits of the case it is observed that though the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 24,84,000/- being difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration 3 Poonam Singh shown, made u/s 50C of the Act, vide assessment order dated 15.12.2018 u/s 144 r.w.s

Mukesh Kishindas Bathija, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4935/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 250Section 50C

same. c) Therefore, your appellant prays that the sales value should be considered as the realized value of Rs.35,50,945/ instead of stamp duty value Rs.73,58,200/ GROUND III On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, The CIT(A) erred in confirming the capital ... declaring total income of Rs.15,17,610/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on account of mismatch in stamp duty value (SDV) and actual consideration of the immovable property transferred during the year. During scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain why SDV of Rs.73,58,200/- should

Sunita Pandey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3567/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Sr.D.R

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

Building No. 9 CHS Ltd, Lokhandwala Township, Akurli Road, Kandivli(E), Mumbai on a consideration of Rs. 41,50,000/- as against the Stamp Duty Value to the tune of Rs. 45,76,743/-, which resulted into attracting the provisions of u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act as alleged ... available on record and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, we observe that admittedly, the differential amount between the stamp duty value and consideration shown by assessee is not more than 10% the "leverage granted" or "safe harbour" tolerance limit for the variation between the actual

Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Ito-1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Near Income Tax Office, Anavil Navyug Collage, Rander Road, Vs. Business Business Centre, Surat-395005. Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aqqps 4288 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, CA

Section 234ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

difference between the purchase consideration consider that the difference between the purchase consideration consider that the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp duty value is within tolerance limit. Hence, no and stamp duty value is within tolerance limit. Hence, no and stamp duty value is within tolerance limit. Hence ... section 56(2)(x)(b) o of the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) o permitting adoption of the stamp duty value as on the date of the permitting adoption of the stamp duty value as on the date of the permitting adoption of the stamp

Kbj Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Commisioner of Income Tax- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1837/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “E” BENCH :: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kbj Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 1409/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. CA

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

which has duly been accounted for in the books. The amount of Rs. 1,38,86,000/- would also be contestable, if the stamp duty value of purchase and other related expenses are taken into account. However, the profit arising from the transfer of the said property

Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Nandkishor S. Daga &For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

land for a consideration which was less than the stamp duty valuation and according to him the difference in the purchase value and stamp duty value was required to be added in the hands of the assessee in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly ... made, therefore for the purposes of calculation of income from other sources i.e. section 56(2)(vii)(b) proviso of the Act the stamp duty value of financial year 2011- 12 should have been adopted instead of stamp duty value of financial year 2013-14. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before

Machhindra Ishwarchand Sarode, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Thirteen(Four), Pune

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

ITA 1746/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

been concluded u/s.147 of the Act on 31.03.2023 wherein addition of Rs.7.00 lakh has been made on account of difference of stamp duty value in terms of provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. I further notice that before ld.CIT(A) assessee raised legal ground challenging

Vastu Nirman, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4491/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43C

making an addition of Rs. 16,22,620/- u/s. 43CA of the Act towards the difference in the stamp duty value and sale consideration received by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 06.06.2025 upheld the addition made ... learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the difference in the stamp duty value and the sale consideration was within the 10% tolerance limit as per the valuation determined by the DVO’s report. The ld. AR further contended that though

Nanubhai Premjibhai Bambharolia, Vapi vs. DCIT, Vapi

ITA 866/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.866/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nanubhai Premjibhai Assistant Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ Bambharolia Tax, Circle-Vapi, 7Th Floor, Room Vs. Plot No/.147/148, H-1, No.704, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi- Kalpdeep Chharwada Road, 396 191 Gidc, Vapi-396 195 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abopb 8282 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyar, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 50C

learned Assessing Officer in considering the Jantri rate of industrial land instead of considering the Jantry rate of agricultural land for determining the stamp duty value of the immovable property under section 50C of the Act. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary ... various places of Moje Tukwada, Tal. Pardi for sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to M/s. Mipro Solution Pvt. Ltd. The stamp duty value of the impugned land was Rs.2,09,90,840/-. In the return of income filed for the AY 2011-12, the assessee declared value

Ram Ji Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Holding Additional Charge of ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 151Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

hands of the assesee and also added regular income of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is noted that the AO adopted stamp duty value as sales consideration following provisions of Section 50C at Rs.53,11,367/- and after allowing indexed cost of acquisition, calculated long term capital gain at Rs.41 ... assessee, the valuation officer also could not determine fair market value of the property on date of sale. In these, circumstances, stamp duty value i.e. 50C of Rs.53,11,367/- is adopted as full value of consideration and long term capital is assessed at4 Rs.41,80,805/- as assessed

Malay Addhya, Bongaon vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1234/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80T

justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 81,83,464/- being the alleged difference in the market value and the stamp duty value by wrongly invoking the provision of sec 56(2)(x) of the Act 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered