MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4- 2019 : Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4- 2019 : Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4- 2019 : Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4- 2019 : Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4- 2019 : Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4- 2019 : Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAPID ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

AKASH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadi.T.A No.313/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Akash Garg Dcit 4/71, Road No.71, Vs. Circle Int. Tax Punjabi Bagh West, 1(3)(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aldpg7446A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

price of the land, as valued by the assessee, was more than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. Section 50C of the Act is a special provision for full value of consideration in some cases. Sub- section (1) of section 50C of the Act provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

transfer of leasehold rights. 3.2 In any case, this being a case of bonafide sale made in accordance with prevailing market rate, the Pr. CIT, New Delhi was not justified in disputing the sale consideration u/s 50C without appreciating the factual position or making any reference to the Valuation Officer in terms of provisions of section 55A of the Income

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

transfer. Further as per Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, a reference to DVO is required in case an assessee contests the circle rate to be higher than the fair market value of the relevant capital asset. Since Assessing Officer neither assessed the value at the circle rate a;- mandated u/s 50 C (1), nor referred

VIJAY KUMAR ,MEERUT vs. DCIT,CC, GZBD

In the result, both appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

50C(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where— (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable

VINIT KUMAR ,MEERUT vs. DCIT,CC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

50C(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where— (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

price for calculation of capital Gain and also further request to please not invoke Section 50C of IT Act. ” 4. The AO was not satisfied and invoked section 50C of the Act and concluded as follows: “9. In light of the above discussion and owing to no substantial explanation from the assesse with respect to the addition proposed, this office

SH. RAJESH KAKKAR,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

price for calculation of capital Gain and also further request to please not invoke Section 50C of IT Act. ” 4. The AO was not satisfied and invoked section 50C of the Act and concluded as follows: “9. In light of the above discussion and owing to no substantial explanation from the assesse with respect to the addition proposed, this office