“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

Laxmi Gupta, Darjeeling vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Darjeeling

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2319/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 56

after obtaining approval of the competent authority. The assessment was reopened on the ground that there is difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration of Rs. 7,35,960/- which is liable to be added u/s 56(vii)(b) of the Act. In para 3 , the AO mentioned that

Laxmi Gupta, Darjeeling vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Darjeeling

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2318/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 56

Smt Suruchi Satish Sarmalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5942/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 154Section 250Section 270A

confirming Assessing Officer order levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 14,50,038/- in regards to difference between purchase consideration and the stamp duty value of the property purchased without appreciating that there is no misreporting of any income, therefore levy of penalty u/s 270A ... income tax software. Ld. AR further relied upon the documents submitted by way of paper book which includes copy of sale agreement, stamp duty value letter, payment receipt of stamp duty and registration charges. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision in the case of Narayanbhai Shivambhai Patel

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 7056/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

completed on 31.3.202014 by making the additions on account of re-computation of long term capital gain by adopting stamp duty value of land amounting to Rs. 1,01,74,000/-; addition on account of unverified share application money amounting to Rs. 5,50,00,000/-; addition on account

Urusi Rahman, Kadma vs. ITO, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 257/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.257/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Urusi Rahman….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 88 New Rani Kodar, Line No.4, Po Kadma, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831005. [Pan: Amxpr0867K] Vs. Ito, Jsr…..……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Declared Consideration Of ₹10,00,000, Whereas The Value Adopted For Stamp Duty Purposes Was ₹25,75,000. It Was Alleged That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Act Were Applicable. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 133(6) Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To Explain The Reasons For Not Filing The Return Of Income & To Furnish Details Regarding The Purchase Of The Property. However, There Was No Compliance By The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued After Obtaining The Requisite Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. During The Course

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being the difference between the stamp duty value and the declared purchase consideration. Further, an addition of ₹11,64,575 was made on account of unexplained investment, including registration expenses, under section

Shankar Polmersetty, Bagbera Kitadih vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 454/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.454/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Polmersetty.... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant H.No.12, Gel Church Mohlla, Gurudwara Road, Tatanagar, Ps Bagbera, Kitadih, Jharkhand- 831002. [Pan: Ajspp1582B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Jamshedpur.….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed By Making An Addition Of ₹12,21,500 Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Purchased A Flat For A Consideration Of ₹9,35,000, Whereas The Stamp Duty Value Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was ₹21,56,500. Accordingly, The Difference Was Treated As Income Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act. The Assessee Submitted That The Booking Of The Flat Was Made On 28.06.2010 & An Advance Payment Of ₹51,000 Was Made Through Account Payee Cheque On The Date Of Agreement. It Was Further Contended That The Property Is Situated In A Rural Area & The Stamp Duty Value As On The Date Of Agreement Was Much Lower Than

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee purchased a flat for a consideration of ₹9,35,000, whereas the stamp duty value adopted by the stamp valuation authority was ₹21,56,500. Accordingly, the difference was treated as income under section ... account payee cheque on the date of agreement. It was further contended that the property is situated in a rural area, and the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement was much lower than I.T.A. No.454/Ran/2024 Shankar Polmersetty the value adopted at the time of registration

Sandeepkumar Kishorbhai Barot, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1 Previously ITO, Ward-3, Mehsana

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

ITA 1645/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 50o

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER wat He G/I.T.A. No. 1645/Ahd/2025

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Rohini Maruti Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

been issued on 29/09/2016. He further submitted that the increase in income from LTCG is arising due to increase of stamp duty value and the assessee having received more consideration than the amount which was finalized during the F.Y. 2010-11. He submitted that as against the remaining LTCG

Tulsabai Vasant Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Amol Vasant Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Raghavendra Ramakrishna Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6Th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Afapn9077M) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ito (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 02.12.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Applicant States That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Principle Laid

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

consideration for the transfer/ purchase of immovable property (date of allotment 29.09.2010) and the date of registration (18.03.2016) are not the same, the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause, Provided that amount of consideration ... agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property is not same as that the date of registration then, the stamp duty value to be taken for the purpose is on the date of agreement. Assessee has complied with the requirement of the said provisos since he made

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

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 32MSection 56(2)(x)

INR.55,48,740/-, The case was selected for regular scrutiny, inter-alia, for verification of purchase of property for consideration less than the stamp duty value. On perusal of order passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) it emerges that Assessee had claimed to have purchased land located ... registered during on 19/09/2019 (i.e. during the relevant previous year) having INr.9,00,00,000/- as agreed consideration when the Index II stamp duty value of the land was INR.27,19,39,000/-. 4. On perusal of the Assessment Order we find that the Assessing Officer adopted stamp duty value

Himmatbhai Madhabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhimmatbhai M. Patel, Vs. Ito, 18, Kailash Dham Part-2, Ward 5(3)(1), India Colony Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380024 [Pan :Aanpd 2497 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property,— (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value of such property ... 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 agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause : Provided further that the provisions of the first proviso shall

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.P

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran and Shri.Shresh Saran on 04/10/2013 against stamp duty value at Rs. 92,76,000/-. Thereafter, the said lease property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding ... relevant to mention that assessee has already made payment of Rs. 31,45,000/- through banking channel in FY 2009-10, therefore, stamp duty value in 2009 was to be applied as per provision of sec. 56(2) of the Act. However, Valuation Officer erred on facts and law while

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as

ITA 350/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 40A(3)Section 69

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

Dosjibhai Chellabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 6517/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19 Dosjibhai Chellabhai Patel, Commissioner Of Income Tax 2/201, Surbhi Apartment, (Appeals), Dafatry Road, Vs. Nfac, Delhi Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan : Aadpp5454C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Mansi Joshi For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 30-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing The Appeal As Pointed Out By The Registry. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Material Placed On Record, We Find That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal & Hence, The Delay Is Hereby Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 50C

registered value comes to Rs. 31,62,000/-. As per the AO in both the cases, the transaction value is less than stamp duty value and, therefore, the provisions of section 50C of the Act are clearly attracted as the assessee has sold immoveable property at sale consideration less than ... stamp duty value and in absence of any submissions and supporting documentary evidences, the AO proceeded to tax the sum of Rs. 31,62,000/- u/s. 50C of the Act. The assessee, thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur vs. M/S Asha Realty Developers Pvt Ltd, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR

during the relevant year. The assessee furnished all the deeds along with complete details and the learned AO computed the difference between the stamp duty value and actual value at %40,97,800/- in respect of 15 flats at page no.3 and added the same u/s 43CA ... learned CIT (A) deleted the addition by holding that the learned AO has wrongly computed the difference between the sale value and stamp duty value of the flats by ignoring the fact that the agreements in these flats were executed in the earlier assessment years and therefore, the sale value