“circle rate”

Capital GainsSection 50CSection 50C478 judgments

The decision most relied on for circle rate is CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (159 ITR 71), cited in 133 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on circle rate

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.

159 ITR 71 · 1986 · Supreme Court

133

citing judgments

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

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.

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.

Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT

75 Taxmann.com 141 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

The circle rate prevalent at the time of entering into an agreement is to be considered for the purpose of Section 50C, as amendments to this section have been held to be retrospectively applicable.

Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-15 (1), Hyderabad

78 Taxmann.com 264 · 2017 · Reported

citing judgments

If a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provides for a lower tax rate than Section 206AA, tax at source must be deducted at the lower DTAA rate, even if the non-resident deductee fails to provide their PAN. Section 206AA does not override the beneficial provisions of a DTAA.

Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. v. ACIT, Central Circle-6(1) Chennai

46 SOT 112 · 2014 · ITAT

citing judgments

When an assessee provides loans to its associated enterprise (AE) using its own funds (not borrowed funds), the arm's length interest rate for such inter-company loans should be determined by considering comparable interest rates like PLR, SBI short-term rate, or LIBOR plus a markup. This principle applies even if the funds were raised through sources like zero per cent optional convertible preferential shares.

Techbooks International (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Noida

63 Taxmann.com 114 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

The determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions involving debt requires consideration of both the amount on which interest should be charged and the arm's length rate for that interest. Guidelines are provided for computing the ALP of the international transaction of 'debt arising during the course of business.'

Joseph Mudaliar v. DCIT

130 Taxmann.com 250 · 2021 · Reported

citing judgments

The amendment to section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by inserting the third proviso through the Finance Act, 2018, is curative and applies retrospectively. This means the tolerance band for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value, introduced by this amendment, is applicable to earlier assessment years.

Judgments citing circle rate

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2750/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbasant Jain, Vs. Dcit, C-119, Shivaji Park, Central Circle-29, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adbpj2416P

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

above the registered value. Accordingly, the ld AO concluded that Rs. 2,41,50,000/- was paid by the assessee over and above the circle rate which constitutes unexplained investment made by the assessee and hence he had reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment

Indusind Information Technology Ltd ( Now Succeeded on Amalgamation by Hinduja Group Ltd ), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar (virtually appeared)&For Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 50C

property by the Appellant, and Ready Recknor Valuation at the time of sale on 22.06.2011, relevant to F.Y. 2011-12, due to correction in Circle rates in Chennai. d) The DVO in its report (para 4.1.3) admits limited buyers for such plot (leading to less bargain power of seller/Appellant ... under: 1. Objection has been raised against addition of 1 per cent per annum for value increase for 47 months as the circle rates were reduced from June 27thby 400o Rs. per sq. ft. 2. The discount of 20 per cent is sought by appellant as frontage of land

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad Ansari, New Delhi

ITA 3080/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Premlata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 153(1)(a)Section 50CSection 68

land, several statements of the persons staying nearby the land were taken in the presence of representative of the assessee and after considering the circle rate of aforesaid land provided by Sub- Registrar (V-A) Hauz Khas, Mehrauli. The assessee has failed to prove the claim of sale of land ... land; adjacent to Sanik Farm and 500 meters away from Saket area. The AO invoked the provision of section 50C, applied the residential area Circle rate supplied by the Sub- Registrar's of Rs 38,640/- per sq.mt for Neb Valley being in category F; calculated the deemed value

Homelife Buildcon Private Limited, Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Smt. Samandeep Kaur DCIT-Central Circle-1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 880/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 153D

brokerage business. Even, Sh. Manu Gupta denied such signatures. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel that the registration had been made at circle rates and relied upon on the judgment of K.P, Varghese, reported in 131 ITR 597 that consideration has to be considered as per registered document ... since 1996. During the year, the assessee had sold 72 plots in his colony and all the registration deeds have been executed as per circle rates. In so far as, the valuation reports as procured by the AO from different persons, 46 who had bought the plots from the company

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 153D

Sh. Irshad Ilahi, Dehradun vs. ITO, W- 1(3), Dehradun

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

ITA 80/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 250

your ready reference, perusal and records. 6. The Learned AO erred in taking the cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 as per the Circle Rate for the Years 1980-1983, whereas the value of the said land and building as per the Report of the Court Commissioner ... decree on 18.11.1987, which has been taken as the 'Cost of Acquisition' as on 1.4.1981(far more proximate to 28.1.1981 rather than the Circle Rate of Years 1980-1983), in making the Computation of Capital Gains annexed per Annexure 6 supra. 7. The Appellant and the other 5 co-owners

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

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 and actual rate of purchase of property. Hence forth the addition of Rs 6 lacs should have been deleted ... lacs although denied by assessee) is recorded in books of accounts and TDS is deducted thereupon and second being that being difference between circle rate and actual purchase rate is of 6 lacs. Accordingly as per AO as the payment of 78 lacs was duly recorded in books of accounts

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

present appeal are that in this case, the Assessing Officer was having information regarding sale of immovable property by the assessee below the circle rate. Therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. The statutory notices u/s 148 of the Act was issued

Ram Bhuvan Yadav, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur

ITA 325/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Bhuvan Yadav Villa No.Cb-3, Romanceque, G.E. Road, Labhandih, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Abbpy6681R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 16ASection 23ASection 24Section 34ASection 35Section 37Section 50CSection 50C(2)

reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act." 3. The assessee further submitted that circle rate fixed by the Collector is not full proof for determination of the rate for the area concerned but it is just to give guidance

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2) Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Sh. Pankaj Meena, Jaipur

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 769/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 68

Dreamline Colonizers and Developers for FY 2011- 12 13-19 5. Copy of Circular No. F.1(281)/Regn-Br./HQ/Div.Com./09/45 notifying the minimum rates (circle rates) for valuation of lands and immovable properties in Delhi. 20-22 6. Copy of Electricity Bills in name of M/s Dreamline Colonizers and Developers

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), New Delhi vs. Rapid Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3522/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Noida Authority transfer charge 68,34,870 GST on above transfer charge @ 18% 12,30,090 Total Cost 33,18,20,460 Circle rate for land & Building 33,24,05,000 Difference 2,52,80,000 Difference in % of sale consideration 8.2% Page 2 of 11 DCIT Vs Rapid Engineering ... dated 25.09.2022 made an addition of Rs. 2,52,80,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act being the difference between circle rate of industrial property purchased and the purchase consideration therein. 5. Aggrieved by the above, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 52/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142ASection 250

obtained the valuation report of the registered vaulter who valued the same at Rs.71,14,423/- which is based on the circle rate of Hari Parvat Road, City Agra being the highest circle rate of none agricultural land in that area. As against this, the DVO observed that the land ... such date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land is an urban land or industrial land. Further, the Approved valuer has taken the circle rate of Hari Parvat area which is far from the area where the land is situated. Under these circumstances, we find that

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 50/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Section 142ASection 250

Vishnu Soni, Shivpuri vs. ITO, Ashoknagar

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

ITA 38/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Mr. Vishnu Soni Ito, Ashok Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Vs. Aayakar Bawan, Shivpuri, Citiy Centre, Madhya Pradesh-473551 Gwalior, Madhya Pan-Awlps6188C Pradesh-474001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

further made addition of Rs.1,87,500/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being the difference between the sale consideration and the circle rate. Against such order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 18.11.2024 partly allowed the appeal

Gaurav Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh / AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

hands of both transferor and transferee based on stamp value is unfair, especially since stamp duty is a State subject with varying circle rates. We submit that these broad arguments cannot override the Act's explicit provisions. Parliament is competent to enact provisions to curb tax evasion via undervaluation

Khalilur Rahaman, Sambhal vs. ITO-1(5) Sambhal, Sambhal

ITA 3965/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roykhalilur Rahaman Vs. Ito, 1(5) S/O Mohd Saddiq, Sambhal Choudhary Sarai, 244302 Sambhal, Up – 244302 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Csgpr6680H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Rs.23,94,300/- out of which Rs.3,94,300/- was paid for the stamp duty on 24.07.2013 along with one Aquib Ur Rahaman. These circle rate of the said property is Rs.56,32,000/-. A non statutory notice for verification of the tax liability in that particular investment has been ... being investment not recorded in the books of accounts and secondly Rs.18,16,000/- bring 50% of the difference amount of the circle rate of Rs.56,32,000/- the purchase price of Rs.20,00,000/-. 3. During the course of appellate proceeding these source of the investment was sought

Sidhidatri Builders & Developers, Dehradun vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Dehradun

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3969/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sidhidatri Builders & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Developers, C/O- R Gupta & Ward-2(3), Associates, 1St Floor, Mid Dehradun Building, 88-Nehru Colony, Dehradun Pan: Acgfs8424G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Praveen Goyal, Self Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 50C(2)

order the AO has treated this transaction as short term capital gain and has substituted the sale price of Rs. 4.50 crores with the circle rate of Rs. 6,17,10,000/-. 8. The appellant before the undersigned has stated that the sale and purchase that it made was merely

Chemangattu Jose John, Kottayam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Tvm

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/COCH/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2015-16 Chemangattu Jose John Dcit, Circle International V. Taxation, Tvm Chemangattu House, Koodalloor Post, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam, Kerala 686595. Pan : Atxpj2649R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R Krishnan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Irs, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2024 Passed By The Dcit Circle Intl. Txn, Tvm (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act (‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Had Sold Two Agricultural Properties Totaling To Rs.15,59,000/-. The Actual Sale Consideration Was Rs.34,00,000/- & However, As Per Registered Deed, The Sale Consideration Was Rs.15,59,000 & Balance Rs.18,41,000/- Remains Unexplained. The Assessing Officer Made An Addition Of 2 Chemangattu Jose John Rs.18,41,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act As The Assessee Failed To Give Satisfactory Reply Before Him.

For Appellant: Shri R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, IRS, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 69Section 69A

sale deed by the authority under Indian Stamp Act and the purchaser is liable to pay stamp duty and may choose to register at circle rate value as prescribed. The assessee NRI was not familiar with a local registration practice, therefore, full consideration of Rs.34,00,000/- was received through ... Moreover, valuation of the stamp duty versus actual consideration, the difference arose solely because of the purchaser chosen to register a deed at the circle rate and stamp duty value was determined by the said authority for which the seller cannot compel the purchaser to reflect negotiated price. Since

Arun Dwivedi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(2), New Delhi

ITA 6293/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Shri Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot

ITA 724/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven units sold to the members of Sonwani family in FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, total sale consideration realized