“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

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

site office of the said project, evidences of on-money received by the appellant and its partner were found. Further, average 20% of stamp duty value was taken for estimating additions of on money in those flats where extrapolation was applied. 8.3 Moreover, the AO found out that

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 874/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

Siroya Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5809/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Rajpurohit, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 43C

made for the reason that the assessee has not filed any details pertaining to the difference between the sale value and the stamp duty value of the flats sold during the year. The AO further estimated 8% profit on the amount added under section 43CA. 7. We notice that

Siroya Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5808/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Rajpurohit, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 43C

Jayantilal Umashankar Chavji, Mumbai vs. National E Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4433/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 80T

made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act 69C on account of difference between agreement value and stamp duty value. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

Dilip Kumar Agrawal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1547/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1547/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Dilip Kumar Agrawal, Ito, Ward-34(3), 1D, 14Th Floor, 78, V/S Kolkata Bentinck Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700 001 West Bengal Pan : Acwpa9714D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abheshek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT

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

Rs.69,28,000/-. In the name of buyer, assessee’s name was appearing along with other co-owners namely Mrs.Geeta Agarwal. However, the stamp duty value of the said property was Rs.1,20,75,600/-. Ld. AO adopted the difference and added half of the amount and assessed the income ... 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

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. N Rose Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6334/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 194Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 250Section 4S

completion for the whole or part of the project is issued by the competent authority; and for the purposes of section 48, the stamp duty value, on the date of issue of the said certificate, of his share, being land or building or both in the project, as increased ... share, being land or building or both in such project, whether with or without payment of part of the consideration in cash; (iii) "stamp duty value" means the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of the Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. N Rose Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6328/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 194Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 250Section 4S

Lila Tejpal Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 5927/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

nothing to say. The AO ultimately made the addition of Rs.10,88,862/- u/s 56(2) of the Act (being difference between stamp duty value of Rs.57,88,862/- and the purchase price of Rs.47,00,000/-). 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 345/RPR/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54BSection 54DSection 56(2)(vii)

order, the effective grounds are two. 5.2 The appellant has contested the addition of Rs.50,65,900/- which represents the difference between stamp duty value and deed value shown in deed of conveyance(purchase price) of the land in question. In the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that appellant bought ... land from Shri Somesh Sukla and the return of income of the appellant showed purchase cost of Rs.5,00,000/-, but stamp duty value of the land determined by the stamp duty authority was Rs.50,65,900/-. When asked to explain why the difference between the stamp duty value

Desh Mitter Gaind, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panchkula, Haryana

ITA 454/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 48Section 50C

Ratna Kumari vs. ITO. In this case the Vishakhapatnam bench of ITAT bench while allowing the benefit to the assessee had that: "Although stamp duty value of the property has been changed as on the date of sale deed for the purpose of determination of deemed consideration ... stamp duty value of the property as on the date of execution of agreement to sale should be adopted instead of value on the date of execution of sale deed. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO was erred in adopting value of the property

Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, Pali vs. ITO, Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2532/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, V The Income Tax Officer, Bazar Peth, At Post Pali,Taluka S Ward-4, Panvel. Sudhagad, District Raigad, Maharashtra – 410205. Pan: Aatpp5508P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Miss Indira R Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 10.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order . The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition To The Extent Of Rs.8,50,834/- U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T.Act 1961, On Account Of Difference Between The Actual Purchase Consideration Of Agricultural Land At Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad & The Value As Per

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; 8[(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 of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: ………………………….. (d) "property" means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely:— (i) immovable property being land or building or both;” 4.2 Section

Buildcube Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thane

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

ITA 5015/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 Buildcube Constructions Pvt. Income Taxofficer, Ltd., Ward-1(1), Office No. G-01, Vs. B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ground Floor,Mirani Nagar, Ahsar It Park Road No.16Z, Kopri Colony Road, Wagle Ind. Estate, Near Union Bank Of India, Thane, Thane (E), Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan : Aaccb3253H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi For Revenue : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2025

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(40)

purchase consideration of Rs. 6.26 crores, but also other expenses incurred by the assessee in the course of acquiring of land, viz., stamp duty value, registration charges, interest capitalization, other incidental expenses etc. in connection with the purchase of land. Further, all these expenses have been duly accounted ... reasons for reopening towards unexplained investment. However, the AO made addition of Rs.11.16 crores, being the difference between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value. Presumably, the AO has applied the spirit of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which came into force w.e.f. 01-04-2017 only

Gali Lakshmi Aruna, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1184/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sripada M, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 56

that the assessee had purchased a property on 01/03/2018 for a consideration of Rs. 10 Lakhs whereas the market value as per the stamp duty value was Rs. 20 Lakhs. Therefore the AO had come to the conclusion that there are some escapement of income. On that basis, further procedures

DCIT - 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporartion Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoca

order, ld. Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and assessed the long-term capital gain by adopting the stamp duty value of Rs.60,45,25,000 as the full value of consideration. In the said order, he also recorded that a reference was made ... However, since the assessment was getting time barred and the valuation report from the ld. DVO had not been received, he adopted the stamp duty value as the full value consideration. By the time the matter came up for hearing before ld. CIT(A), ld. DVO had determined the fair

Shriram Narayan Tikde, Nagpur vs. Income Tax, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

ITA 89/NAG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 68

property is situated at Shantinagar Nagpur. The same was inherited to assessee on demise of his mother namely Late Laxmibai Narayan Tidke. The stamp duty value as per section 50C is 20,56,000/-.  The assessee had objected to the action of learned AO in not referring the property

M.P. Veerachandra Chettiyar, Kadavanthara vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Range-1, Non Corporate Ward-1(50, Kochi

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

ITA 557/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Smt. Divya Ravindran

Section 56(2)(vii)

reopened the assessment u/s. 263 of the Act for the reason that the assessee had purchased three immovable properties showing a higher stamp duty value but registered the same for a lesser consideration. The AO pursuant to the order of the Ld.CIT(A), had verified the documents and added

Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 444/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan : Akfpk1757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

available on record. During scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs.3,10,000, whereas its stamp duty value was Rs. 60,02,000/-, resulting in an addition of Rs.56,92,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Additionally, an expenditure

Syed Hifajat Ali, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur

Appeal are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 527/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 527/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

accepting the value of land and building as per the valuation of Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) which valuation is higher than the stamp duty value of the property at which it has been actually purchased by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the view ... made by Ld. AO on account of difference in book value of property (which value is equal to the stamp duty value) and value of same as per DVO valuation report may please be deleted. 2. On the fact and in circumstances of case and in the law and without

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 348/RPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

aforesaid conviction vide his order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 brought the difference in the FMV (stamp duty value) vis-à-vis the actual purchase value of Rs.3,70,89,000/-[Rs.3,75,00,000/-(-) Rs.4,11,000/-] to tax by treating the same ... failed to produce any evidence in support same. Hence, subject land was treated as capital asset and difference between purchase price and stamp duty value was added as income of the appellant in accordance with provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act. 10.3. In appellate proceedings