“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

Kishore Anand Shetty, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

noticing the difference between the declared consideration and the stamp duty valuation, invoked the deeming provisions of section 50C and substituted the proportionate stamp duty value as the full value of consideration, thereby making an addition of ₹13,47,925/-. 6. Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ... backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts. Section 50C is a special deeming provision which permits substitution of the declared consideration with the stamp duty value only where such stamp duty value represents the fair market value of the capital asset transferred. The provision does not operate in vacuum, nor does

Kishore Anand Shetty, Mumbai vs. Circle-32(2), Mumbai

ITA 4974/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

Late Chanchal Hiralal Shah (Represented by Legal Heir Rohit Hiralal Shah), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6349/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

Portal, it was noticed that the assessee purchased immovable property for consideration of ₹21,27,480/- during the year under consideration, whereas the stamp duty value of the said property determined by the stamp valuation authority was ₹57,83,400/-. Accordingly, the provisions of section ... applicable. It was 4 I.T.A. No. 6349/Mum/2025 noted that, the difference of ₹36,55,920/- between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value was not offered to tax by the assessee and the source of investment also remained unexplained. 3.1. Based on the aforesaid information, the Ld. AO issued

Veena Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration stand allowed

ITA 5492/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (Ld. CIT- D.R.)

Section 131Section 132Section 153Section 250

without considering peculiar fact that the Assessee otherwise has purchased the Shop/property under consideration on a consideration/value, which is otherwise more than the stamp duty value, as determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. Further, the Assessing Officer also failed to brought on record any comparable case in the same

ITO, Mumbai vs. Himanshu Sarda, Mumbai

ITA 5862/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito,Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Himanshu Sarda Room No. 734, Kautilya 705/706, Shivalaya Residency Chs Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Ltd., Thakur Complex, 90 Feet Mumbai-400051 Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai- 400101 Pan: Flpps9753F Appellant Respondent C.O.410/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5862/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv & Akshay Pawar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

declaring total income 1,00,000/-. However, the assessee had sold the property for agreement value of Rs.25,00,000/- as against the stamp duty value of the 15,38,83,500/- during the impugned assessment year. The notice u/sec. 148 of the Act was issued and after the substitute

Ncr Warehousing Private Limited, Gurugram vs. CIT Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 6307/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

evidences furnished by the assessee, during the course of proceedings. He has further argued that the action of the Ld. AO in adopting stamp duty value for determining the cost of construction without referring the matter to the DVO was contrary to the legal provisions. In view of these facts

Devyani Deepak Rawtal, Nagpur vs. ITO(It&Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 129/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

wishes to refer to Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) read with proviso as stated below: “\.....(b) any immovable property, (i) | without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stomp duty value of such property, (ii) — for a consideration which is less than the stomp duty ... property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stump duty 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

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Mangaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, New Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2434/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

erred in making additions amounting to Rs. 63,65,000/- u/s 50C of the Act without considering: 6.1.1. The stamp duty value of the land is not Rs. 63,65,000/- 6.1.2. The full value of consideration of the land is Rs. 20,00,000/- 6.1.3. The land is held ... assessing officer was of the view that the land is a grass land and not cultivated by the assessee and considered the stamp duty value of ₹ 63,65,000/- as the sales consideration. After passing order under section 148 A (d) of the IT act, Notice under section

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(5), Raigad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2418/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

Harish Hari Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 33(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7509/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarharish Hari Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shop No.1, Gokul Monarch, Tax, Circle 33(1), Mumbai Room No. 949, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101 Bhawan, G-Block, Bandra (E), Pan:Aadpg1721F Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram [For Brevity ‘The Ld.Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 43CSection 48

during impugned assessment year the assessee sold the number of flats of his project. It is observed by the Ld. AO that the stamp duty value as on date of booking and agreement value related to flat no.705, 502 and B-703 & total value of difference comes amount to Rs.18 ... under-reporting of income.” 4. The Ld. AR contended that, in respect of Flat Nos. 705 and 502, the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value amounted to 4 Harish Hari Gandhi Rs.1,07,375/- and Rs.4,66,668/-, respectively. It was submitted that in both cases

Kandavara Abdul Basheer, Mangaluru vs. ITO Intl Tax Ward Mangalore, Mangaluru

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2249/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kandavara Abdul Basheer, 1-224, Zohara Manszil, The Income Tax Officer, Church Road, Kandavara, International Tax Ward, Kinnikambla D.K., Mangalore, Vs. Mangalore. Karnataka – 574 151. Pan: Avepb7561Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, CA

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 56(2)(vii)

stamp charges. Further, sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- was made on account of addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) difference between the stamp duty value of the transaction as well as the amount of consideration paid. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the issuance of notice ... Assessment Order or in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that Assessee was either questioned about the difference between the stamp duty value and the transaction value. No doubt, the Assessee did not prefer any objection before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel but in the statement of facts

Malika, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/LKW/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Pandey, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)(X)Section 69

unexplained and therefore he added the same back under section 69. Furthermore, he found that against the stamp duty value of Rs.18,40,000/-, the assessee had purchased the property for only Rs. 12,00,000/- and therefore, the difference of Rs. 6,40,000/- was added back

Asha Shivajirao Bhise, Latur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2110/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for the alleged difference between stamp duty value of the immovable property on the date of registering the sale deed and the amount of consideration paid for purchase of flat referred in the sale agreement

Crystal Ice and Cold Stor Age, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2309/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage, Plot No. 395-A1 Industrial Area, The Income Tax Officer, Baikampady New, Mangalore, Ward-1(1), Vs. Mangaluru, Karnataka – 575011. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaefc9692E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194I

computation of total income, Assessee submitted that it had acquired a property on 30.08.2004 which was sold on 30.09.2015 wherein the stamp duty value of the consideration was Rs. 70,00,000/-. The Assessee submitted that land was purchased in financial year 2004- 05 at a total cost

Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Ms. Shama Mohd. Ismail Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

note the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which reads as follows: - “(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: …………………. 5 (c) ………………. 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

Jora Ram Mali, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 7647/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 292CSection 65BSection 69

disposed of together to avoid duplication of arguments and ensure consistency of findings. Additional Grounds of Appeal 1. Registered Agreement Value Higher Than Stamp Duty Value The learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the appellant's actual property purchase, duly registered, was made at a price higher than

Jora Ram Mali, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 7646/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 292CSection 65BSection 69

Aero Pack Products Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 6697/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

report in Form No. 3CD (Clause 29(b)), the CPC, while processing the return, treated the difference between the stated consideration and the stamp duty value as income under section 56(2)(x) and made an adjustment of ₹52,52,000/-. 4. In appellate proceedings, the learned first appellate authority ... even advert to the valuation determined by the DVO and has proceeded to confirm the adjustment merely on the basis of the stamp duty value. Such an approach, in our considered view, is wholly unsustainable. Once a reference to the DVO is made and a report is obtained, the same

Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 4, Thane

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

ITA 6522/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkundan Jayantilal Bhatt Ito Cirlce-4, 277, Kundan Bunglow Room No. 2, Ashar Behind Yashwant Heights, Vs. It Park, 6Th Floor, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Road No. 16Z, Virar (West), Shivansai, Wagle Industrial Thane, Maharashtra – Estate, Thane, 401 303 Maharashtra- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Adjpb4878K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 142ASection 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

plot of land from M/s. Satyam Builders vide conveyance deed dated 20.10.2015 for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-, whereas the stamp duty value of the said property was Rs. 86,06,000/-. The difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration worked ... reiterated the facts and noted that he assessee had purchased a plot of land for Rs. 5,00,000/- and the stamp duty value thereof was Rs. 86,06,000/-. It was further recorded by the learned CIT(A) that, on the request of the assessee, reference was made

Naresh Kumar Morya, Narela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(1), Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2292/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Hooda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

immovable property situated at MIG Flat No. 117, 2nd Floor, Ekjot Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi to the tune of Rs. 49 lakhs and the stamp duty value of this property stood at Rs. 52,32,960. The learned AO recorded reasons that a sum of Rs. 3,32,960 being