Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.53

Section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 53 (Full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 53 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 43CA is CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. (49 Taxmann.com 249), cited in 294 of the 521 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 43CA

CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd.
49 Taxmann.com 249 · 2014 · Supreme Court
294
citing judgments

Legislation is ordinarily presumed not to have retrospective operation, especially for taxing statutes unless explicitly stated or when intended to remove hardship for the assessee. The decision clarifies the principles for determining whether an amendment to a taxing statute applies prospectively or retrospectively, distinguishing between clarificatory and substantive amendments.

Nirma Industries Ltd. v. DCIT
283 ITR 402 · 2006 · High Court
136
citing judgments

Interest received on delayed payments for sales is considered part of the sale proceeds and is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA as business income.

Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT
149 ITD 363 · 2014 · ITAT
104
citing judgments

Curative amendments, such as a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced to remove undue hardship, apply retrospectively even without specific legislative declaration, rectifying shortcomings and obviating unintended difficulties.

CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal
338 ITR 485 · 2011 · High Court
69
citing judgments

The revenue must prove that an assessee received extra consideration beyond the declared value; a Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report alone is insufficient to establish such receipt.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
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.

Allied Motors v. CIT
297 ITR 322 · 2008 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

An amendment to a section is declaratory and clarifies the existing legal position, rather than introducing a new rule.

CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi
328 ITR 604 · 2010 · High Court
58
citing judgments

The primary burden of proof for concealment of income lies with the revenue, and a DVO valuation report can only be relied upon after the revenue has discharged this initial burden.

CIT v. Green Infra Ltd.
78 Taxmann.com 340 · 2017 · High Court
56
citing judgments

The valuation of shares is not relevant for determining the genuineness of a transaction under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Interest income earned on the deposit of surplus funds is taxable as business income.

PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd.
111 Taxmann.com 94 · 2019 · High Court
50
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
48
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).

Judgments on Section 43CA

M/S K G Construction, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 120/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Mukesh Vasantkumar Chandan, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3003/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 250

Ankita Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 8385/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 43C

Adarsh Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 50CSection 50C(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Vidhi Enterprises, Mumbai

ITA 4164/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende (SR DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5319/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

Jaidev Vinod Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he held appeal of the assessee as liable to be dismissed

ITA 6626/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 43CSection 50CSection 53A

Harish Hari Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 33(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7509/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarharish Hari Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shop No.1, Gokul Monarch, Tax, Circle 33(1), Mumbai Room No. 949, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101 Bhawan, G-Block, Bandra (E), Pan:Aadpg1721F Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram [For Brevity ‘The Ld.Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 43CSection 48

Jude Antony Durai Raj, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 3585/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3585/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jude Antony Durai Raj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of B-67, 17Th Cross Street, Maharaja Income Tax, Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011. Circle 1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Addpj2991H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 59 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 43CSection 44ASection 50C

Aanya Realtors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7353/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Learned Cit(A) On Account Of Practical Difficulties. It Was Submitted That The Office Of The Assessee Had Been Taken Over & The Lender Institution, In Relation To The Real Estate Project, Had Been Handed Over To Another Developer, And, Therefore, The Requisite Records Were Not Readily Available. It Was Further Submitted That Before The Learned Cit(A), A Request Was Made Seeking Additional Time Of 21 Days For Filing Written Submissions & Evidences; However, Before The Expiry Of The Said Period, The Learned Cit(A) Proceeded To Pass The Impugned Order.

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 68

Ascon Infrastructure (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2109/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

Pragjibhai Parshotambhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 858/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250Section 44ASection 50C

Sai Shraddha Developers, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Pune

ITA 2837/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.S. RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(2)Section 43C

Sarbjeet Kour, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

ITA 440/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Sarbjeet Kour, A.C.I.T., T2/57, Ashok Road, East Singhbhum, Central Circle, Vs. Telco Works So, Jamshedpur-831004. Jamshedpur. Pan No. Bqapk 7229 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 2Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Plutus Infrastructure Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna

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

ITA 30/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.30/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Plutus Infrastructure Ltd.………………. …………………....Appellant 310, N P Centre, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna- 800001.. [Pan: Aadcp2152Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Sr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Construction. For The Assessment Year 2015–16, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹83,028. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Estimated The Net Profit At The Rate Of 8% On Undisclosed Sales & Accordingly Made An Addition Of ₹17,71,120. In Addition Thereto, An Addition Of ₹5,60,000 Was Made

Section 250Section 43C

Smt. Nileshwar Jayanthi Prabhu L/R of Late Sri. Nileshwar Damodar Prabhu, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1697/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 57

Nagaiah Kekkireni, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 932/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

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)