“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

Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-2 (6) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ Dhareshwar Appartment 56, Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Digvijay Plot, Floor, Manek Center, Nehru Road, Vs. Jamnagar (Guj) -361005 Jamnagar (Guj) -361006 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aqkpr6633C : (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property, Dhruti J Ranpariya (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property: (B) 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: Provided that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

information was received from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Kanpur that the assessee had sold a property below the market value / stamp duty value. Therefore, the case was reopened under section 147 after the necessary approvals, by way of issue of notice under section 148 of the Income ... taken on record. However, in view of the fact that the assessee had objected to the value of the property as per the stamp duty value, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of section 50C, the matter was referred to the office of the Valuation Officer, Kanpur under section

Rina Ray, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Darjeeling

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

ITA 2262/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 45Section 50CSection 54E

properties during the year under appeal for Rs.58,00,000/-, in which the share of the appellant was for Rs.29,00,000/-. The stamp duty value of the sold property was for Rs.77,66,250/- and the share of the appellant was for Rs.38,83,125/-, being full value

Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Mulund vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R

Section 250

section 56(2)(x) as discussed above. 9.1 The AO ultimately, held the differential amount of Rs. 75,05,715/- between the stamp duty value and purchase valuation as deemed income under Section 56 (2) (x) of the Act, which works out to Rs. 25,01,905/- being 1/3rd ... advance payment made through Cheque in the year 2011, held that from the provisions of Section 56 (2) (x) of the Act, the stamp duty value of the property in the year 2011 should be taken for the purpose of computing income of the Assessee under Section

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Gopal Narayandas Kela, Akola

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2897/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawaldcit-Cc-6(1), Mumbai Vs. Gopal Narayandas Kela Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 40 Ramanath Sadan, Kaufilya Bhawan, Bkc, Ravi Nagar Goenka Mumbai-400051 Layout, Akola Maharashtra-444001 Pan/Gir No. Aczpk2401Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250Section 69Section 69C

cash is wrong. Under the Income Tax Act there are specific anti- avoidance provisions whereby purchase of the property at less than the Stamp Duty Value can be brought to tax on the amount of difference between the agreement value and the Stamp Duty Value. Lastly it was also submitted

Vanraj Ranchhoddas Merchant (Through Legal Heir Harshit Merchant), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5234/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

cannot be equated merely because both relate to immovable property. 29. Section 50C is a deeming provision which substitutes the stamp duty value as the full value of consideration where the capital asset transferred is land or building or both. It is a settled principle of interpretation that a deeming

Dinesh Ramesh Matta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 5084/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sameer DalalFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 147

head Capital Gain by the Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has wrongly upheld the market value (Stamp Duty Value) for the purpose of Calculation of Capital Gain taken by the Assessing Officer. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has failed ... assessee, thereafter, was selected for scrutiny for the reason that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold an immovable property for stamp duty value of Rs. 1,08,50,875/-, whereas the stamp duty valuation of the said property was higher than the amount of consideration shown

Meena Arjun Narang, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6651/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 147Section 56(2)(x)

Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in respect of the difference between the agreement value and the stamp duty value of the property, without appreciating the true nature of the transaction and the supporting evidences placed on record. 3. Failure to Consider the Allotment Letter as a Valid Agreement ... Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the entire difference 2 Meena Arjun Narang between the agreement value and the stamp duty value in the hands of the Appellant, ignoring the fact that the Appellant is a co-owner of the property. Accordingly, if any addition were to be made

Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Jyoti Embroidery Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 10 (2)(1), V1-0 Vara’S House, 1St Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Ganeshwadi, Ground Floor, Mumbai – 400020. Near Mj Market, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400002 Pan – Aaacj 0872 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.07.2025 Impugned Herein Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’) For The Ay 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Sold A Land To M/S. Yogeshwar Farms Private Limited For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- & Claimed The Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed On Dated 28Th September, 2013, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1,57,50,330/-. The Ao Considered The Said Claim Of The Assessee & Ultimately Found That The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property Is Of 2 Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited Rs.387,39,000/- & The Assessee Has Sold The Property For Rs.2,15,00,000/- I.E. Less Than The Value Adopted Or Assessed By The Valuation Authorities Of The State Government & Therefore He Vide Assessment Order Dated 25.09.2017 Under Section 143 (3) Read With Under Section 147 Of The Act, Ultimately Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,72,39,000/- Being Differential Amount Between The Stamp Duty Valuation & The Value Declared By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. SR. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 250Section 55

declaring total income of Rs. 1,57,50,330/-. The AO considered the said claim of the assessee and ultimately found that the stamp duty value of the property is of 2 Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited Rs.387,39,000/- and the assessee has sold the property for Rs.2

Amarjit Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4377/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik JainFor Respondent: 30/09/2025

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

treat the difference between the Officer, therefore, proposed to treat the difference between the Officer, therefore, proposed to treat the difference between the stamp duty value and the stated stamp duty value and the stated consideration as income under consideration as income under section ... first proviso to section 2017. It was submitted that in terms of the first proviso to section 56(2)(x), the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement ought to 56(2)(x), the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement ought

Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offcier 24(1)(1), Piramal Chamber

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 3790/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi Ito-24(1)(1) E-651, B Wing, 6Th Floor Room No. 702 New Chandra Chsl, Veera Desai Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers Andheri West Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Amypk5431D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld Dr Date Of Hearing : 06 /11/2025 Date Of : 24/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, LdFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 68Section 69Section 80C

loss account, balance sheet etc. has claimed that the property in fact was purchased for Rs. 22,50,000/- but not at the stamp duty value of Rs. 49,76,580/- and the fund was sourced from loan taken from M/s. Sunchan Securities Ltd. and assessee‟s own fund. With

Himanshu Kukreja, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Himanshu Kukreja Vs Income Tax Officer Matta Garg & Co. Ca 15- Income Tax Office, 13-A, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakjhand Pan:Ahipk9462F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees,the whole of the aggregate value of such sum [(b) any immovable property, without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property:] (c) any property, other than immovable property. (i) without consideration ... 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate vs. Royal Developers, Nr. Ip Mission School, Muglisa

ITA 860/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh K KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

also adverted to the applicability of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, though no separate addition was made thereunder since the entire stamp duty value had already been brought to tax under section 69. 3. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made under ... possession and payment were made in 2013. The details of such documents are as under: Document Sl No Date of registration Stamp duty Value Document Value Land Identity SRT/10/NPR/840 5/2017 13/11/2017 53,69,387 24,75,000 (CASH PAID) Nondh No 2112 A & B, City Survey No 11 (50%) SRT/10/NPR/840

Shantilal Narottamdas Panchal, Malad East vs. ITO-41(3)(4), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3570/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(vii)

aside the reassessment order by making an addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the act of Rs.16,16,116/- as the difference between stamp duty value and purchase value of the property without appreciating that under the redevelopment Agreement the assessee and his wife jointly received new property area ... from the builder for Rs.18,30,100/-. Accordingly, the total area of the property received is 640 sft and the stamp duty value on this is Rs.34,46,216/-. However, the A.O. incorrectly made the addition by taking the difference between the stamp duty value on this is Rs.34

ACIT Central Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 5779/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

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 10 found out that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4448/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4445/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ms. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4444/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

Simmi Gupta, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT TDS, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 212/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Simmi Gupta, The Dcit/Acit (Tds), 1076, Sector 37-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpg4983R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194Section 201

draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum or the stamp duty value of such property, whichever is higher, as income tax thereon. (2). No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration ... transfer of an immovable property and the stamp duty value of such property, are both, less than fifty lakh rupees. (3). The provisions of section 203A shall not apply to a person required to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this Section." Explanation — For the purposes of this

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

that the capital gain declared by the assessee in his ITR is not substantiated by any evidence and there is contradiction to the stamp duty value of the sold property. Accordingly, he treated the same as short term capital gains by determining the same as under : Full Value of consideration ... Further I observe that the assessee has received sale consideration against the sale of land during the year, even though, the stamp duty value is mentioned in the agreement of Rs.8,40,000/-. However, the assessee has actually received Rs.8,00,000/- as sale consideration. By considering the above three