← All Phrases

“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
65
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
58
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
50
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
48
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
43
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
39
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
25
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

Aravinda Bhupathiraju Rep by Gpa Holder Sri Kar Bahadur Sri Raja, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Internal Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

with undivided share of land of 108 Sq.yards along with two car parking for a sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/- against Stamp Duty Value of Rs.1,43,28,000/-. Assessee has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing the capital gains derived from ... notices issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] in the course of assessment proceedings. Ld. AO thereafter adopted the Stamp Duty Value of Rs.1,43,28,000/- while framing the assessment under section 144 of the Act. Ld. AO determined the Long-Term Capital Gain

Sohag Dilip Kapadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Piramal Chambers

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

information available on record that the assessee has sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/- and the stamp duty value of the property was determined at Rs. 95,98,600/-. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income, the AO issued a notice ... respond to the notices issued completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 in which he made an addition of the stamp duty value. There was a delay of 496 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay

Richa India Infra Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1622/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 43C

scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the Stamp Duty value of six of the flats in the project sold by the assessee is more than the consideration received. The AO accordingly issued a show-cause ... holding that “3.11 In view of the above discussion, the amount of Rs.20,21,31,162/- being the differential amount between stamp duty value of Rs.28,32,57,338/- and agreement value of Rs.8,32,57,338/- is made to the business income of the assessee as per section 43CA

Kalptaru Infrabuild, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT-3 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

According to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, where a property is purchased for less than its stamp duty value, the difference is taxable as “Income from Other Sources”. Principal CIT noted that in the original assessment, the AO had failed to make any such addition. During ... issue at hand. Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act reads as follows: - "(b) any immovable property,- (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; Kalptaru Infrabuild vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 5– (B) for a consideration

Ratilal Karmshi Patel, Satara vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

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

ITA 1399/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1399/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ratilal Karmshi Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, D-70, Midc, Taswade, S. Ward-1, Satara. Umbraj, Taluka Karad, District Satara – 415109. Maharashtra. Pan: Abppp6230R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramchandran – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

erred in confirming the addition of long-term capital gains of 1,17,41,327 arising on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration received upon sale of the property by the appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary and/or withdraw

Jai Prakash Narayan Sharma, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 807/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer”. Therefore, bare meaning of Net Consideration differs from 50C which specifically replace stamp duty value for the purpose of section 48 only. Page 6 of 13 Jai Prakash Narayan Sharma ITA No. 807/Ind/2024 - AY 2016-17 The provision of section

Sukh Pal Singh, Sanjauli vs. ITO, Ward-2, Shimla

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 535/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.535/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sukh Pal Singh Ito बनाम/ Sheela Niwas, Chalaunti Ward No-2 Vs. Sanjauli, Hp 171006. Shimla. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aymps-5057-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 22-11-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Assessment Of Long Term

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54FSection 55A

same and adopted notified rate of Rs.20/- per square meter and reworked the cost of acquisition. Applying the provisions of Sec.50C, the stamp duty value of Rs.105.60 Lacs was adopted and net LTCG was worked out to be Rs.104.27 Lacs. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F and in support thereof

Rama Rajendra Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(6), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rama Rajendrasawant Ito, Ward-23(3)(6), Mumbai 13/11, R.S. Compound, T.J. Road, Vs Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Sewree, Mumbai-400015. Mumbai – 400012. [Pan No. Azlps1612C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

taxability of the purchase of immovable property. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in adding 50% the difference of purchase price and stamp duty value of the jointly purchased residential property as income under section 56(2)(x) even though the same has been offered

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

short ‘Property 1A’] The aggregate difference in the purchase consideration for Property 1B and Property 1A and the respective stamp duty value was INR.1,18,32,792/- [INR.89,23,838/- + INR. 3 Assessment Year 2018-2019 29,08,954/-]. Therefore, the Assessing Officer observed that the applicability of Section ... source of purchase consideration and therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the consideration paid by the Assessee as ‘Nil’ and treated the aggregate stamp duty value of INR.1,35,17,669/- (INR.1,01,94,401/- + INR.33,23,268/-) as income of the Assessee under Section

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalprabhat Gumanmal Lodha, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

added to the total income of the assessee under the head "Income from Other Sources" on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value of the property purchased by the assessee." 5. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned ... provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration in the case of transfer of property. The provisions clearly state that if the consideration for transfer is less than

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -17(3), Hyderabad

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-
Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

agreement” fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property, then, subject to the conditions therein envisaged it will be the stamp duty value on the date of the “agreement” (supra) that is to be adopted. Unlike Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, as there ... amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration : Provided that where the stamp duty value of immovable property as referred to in sub-clause (b) is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section

Yogesh Kumar Verma, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur

ITA 305/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 305/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 50C(2)

without referring the matter to DVO for valuation of such land u/s 50C(2) when 'actual sale consideration' is less than the 'stamp duty value', matter is liable to be referred to DVO for valuation; action of the AO/ CIT(A) without following procedure laid down

Mahendra Purushottam Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Panaji

Accordingly. The ground thus stands allowed

ITA 12/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

fact that the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration preceded the date of registration of the agreement. Therefore, the stamp duty value as on the date of such agreement ought to have been considered for the purpose of section 50C(1) of the Act. 3. Since ... prejudice to grounds no 1 to 5 above in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing officer erred in adopting the stamp duty value of land of Rs. 14,32,37,500 (50 percent of Rs. 20,64,75,000) sold by appellant during the year Instead

Rajendra Singh Bagga, Damoh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Katni

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

ITA 187/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

declaring a total income of Rs.1,93,57,990/-. The ld. AO observed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property below stamp duty value and therefore in his opinion, attracted the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to the extent of Rs. 5,99,420/-. He issued ... assessee that the addition had been 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga wrongly made and represented the difference between the stamp duty value of the property and the actual purchase price paid, which ought to be ignored since it fell within the 10% margin, on the grounds that

Harcharan Singh, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-2(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 201/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.201/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harcharan Singh V. Ito-2(5) 118/208, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur- Kanpur 208012. Pan:Anxps2189N अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 06 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

LTCG on sale of land and the amount of addition being computed as Sale consideration’ was, Page 5 of 8 replaced by Stamp duty Value u/s 50 C of the Act. Ground No: 7 challenges non granting of proper opportunity. Ground no.1 to 3 challenge the reopening proceedings. After grounds ... challenge addition of Rs.1,56,21,620 on account of LTCG on sale of land as the difference between shown sale consideration and stamp duty value u/s 50C of the Act. 5.1.1 The Ld. AO discussed the related addition in Para 2 of the impugned order dated 28.12.2018. The discussion

Shri Kaushik Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 61(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 838/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer in assessing Rs. 9,44,500/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(il) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being difference of stamp duty value and actual consideration in spite of the fact that the same is duly falls under the tolerance band of 10%. 12. For that even

Antony Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 815/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.815/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Antony Sunil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 59, 11Th Trust Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bxbps7987P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 415 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)Section 69

document executed on 15.03.2017. When the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish explanation, the assessee could not explain the difference amount between stamp duty value and purchase consideration of ₹.11,00,000/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the said difference of ₹.11,00,000/- under section

Sangeeta Ratilal Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2882/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainsangeeta Ratilal Panchal Vs Ito, Ward-42(1)(5), Room No.945, Room No.2115, Plot No.335 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- Tamil Sangam Chawl, Jawahar 400 051 Nagar, Road No.19, Goregaon West, Mumbai-Alapp5767E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)
Section 156Section 234Section 234BSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(21)(vii)

addition of Rs. 12,67,524, representing the difference between the purchase price of the property i.e Rs.55,57,500 and the stamp duty value le. Rs. 68,25,024 as on the date of registration of agreement (27th May 2016), as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority ... agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause. However, the Learned AO and CIT(A) has erred

Teckmen Systems, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the above terms

ITA 28/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. P. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50CSection 55A

consideration of Rs. 2,82,50,000/- which according to the AO/CPC is valued at Rs. 3,17,19,500/- as per the stamp duty value for which the CPC made an addition u/s. 50CA of the Act amounting to Rs. 37,19,500/- being the difference between the ready

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

building under construction. GROUND NO. 3: FAILURE TO REFER TO VLUATION OFFICER In case of the difference between the Agreement value and the stamp duty value, the AO and the DRP were required to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation as was required u/s 43CA ... Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that no addition should be made on account of the differencing Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value in cases where there is a time difference between the date of agreement and the date of registration provided the payment in full or in part