BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai96Delhi31Kolkata13Bangalore11Ahmedabad9Surat7Pune7Raipur6Chandigarh4Jaipur3Lucknow3Rajkot3Chennai3Hyderabad2Indore1SC1Nagpur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 55A14Addition to Income6Section 50C4Section 54B4Disallowance4Section 254(1)3Long Term Capital Gains3Section 1482Deduction2

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for in ITA

ITA 1335/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1335/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 Late Manishbhai Nagindas Gajjar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Illaben Manishbhai Ward- 6(3) Surat Gajjar, 316Kh Luhar Mohhallo , Palgam, Chaurasi Surat 359009 Pan: Aovpg 1860K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 55A

section 55A of the Act. Whether this amendment can be taken L/h Late Manishbhai Gajjar Smt.Ilaben Manishbhai v. ITO-WD-6(3) Surat /I.T.A. No.1335 & 1336/Ahd/2016/A.Y:11-12 Page 12 of 17 into consideration for the assessment year under consideration, it has been covered by decision of Hon`ble Bombay High Court. Therefore, considering the ratio as laid down

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Surat
29 Dec 2022
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54BSection 55A

Section 55A of Income Tax Act which have been amended with effect from 01/06/2012. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) grossly erred by not considering the judicial pronouncements cited during appellate proceedings. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT vs. M/S. I.P. PATEL & CO.,, SURAT

In the result appeal of Ilaben K

ITA 781/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: PendingITAT Surat05 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Aditya Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 55A

section 55A is concerned, it is with effect from 01.07.2012 i.e. by finance Act 2012 the transaction taken place in F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12 and the amended provision would not be applicable on this transaction. 9. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. I allow these grounds of appeal in the case

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54BSection 54FSection 55A

section 55A of the act for valuing impugned property edge on 1st April 1981 without pointing out any defect whatsoever in the report of government approved value submitted by assessee in support of valuation of property. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming

SHRI ASHUTOSH SHARADBHAI KAPADIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXN.),, SURAT

Appeal are allowed

ITA 449/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 55A

disallowance of Rs.11,46,870/- being difference between the valuation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 between the report of District Valuation Officer(DVO) and Approved Valuer of the assessee, without considering the objection filed by the assessee and Ashutosh Sharadbhai Kapadia v. ITO(International Taxation) Surat /I.T.A. No. 449/AHD/2017/A.Y.13-14 Page 2 of 6 ignoring the fact that

MANJULABEN BABUBHAI THUMAR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

ITA 2997/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2997/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manjulaben Babubhai Thumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.195, 01St Floor, Road No.6F, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat. Udyognagar, Udhna, Surat-394 210. [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 50CSection 55A

disallowed. Therefore, the assessee further contended that if the said improvement expenses of Rs.99,44,432/- is not accepted than the matter may be referred to DVO for valuation u/s. 55A of the Act to verify the market value and the cost of improvement expenses incurred. The assessee has also submitted the registered sale deed in which sale consideration

MADHUBEN HARKISHANDAS PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD2(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 1085/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1085/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Madhuben Harkishandas Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 65, Vav Faliyu, Village-Sandhiyer, 2(2)(1), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Surat-394 130 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs [Pan : Azfpp 1116 Q] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 55A

section 151A. Madhuben H Patel 4.On facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on subject, ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of AO in making addition of Rs.1,36,47,625/- being indexed cost of acquisition when no reference to DVO is made u/s 55A. 5.On facts and circumstances of the case as well