Which cases are most cited on Section 55A?

CIT v. Puja Prints (360 ITR 697) — 88 citing judgments; Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO (310 ITR 31) — 66 citing judgments; CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (309 ITR 233) — 55 citing judgments; 48(SC) 2. Principal Commission of Income Tax v. NDR Promoters (P) Ltd. (96 Taxmann.com 602) — 27 citing judgments; Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (150 ITR 643) — 23 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 55A?

BharatTax indexes 409 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 55A of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 55A of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Puja Prints (360 ITR 697) is the decision most relied on for Section 55A, cited in 88 judgments. The amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which replaced "is less than" with "is at variance" as the condition for referring a valuation to a Departmental Valuation Officer, does not have retrospective effect. Consequently, for periods before July 1, 2012, a DVO reference is invalid if the declared value is not "less than" the fair market value.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.91

Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 91 (Reference to Valuation Officer) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 91 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 55A is CIT v. Puja Prints (360 ITR 697), cited in 88 of the 409 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 55A

CIT v. Puja Prints

360 ITR 697 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which replaced "is less than" with "is at variance" as the condition for referring a valuation to a Departmental Valuation Officer, does not have retrospective effect. Consequently, for periods before July 1, 2012, a DVO reference is invalid if the declared value is not "less than" the fair market value.

Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO

310 ITR 31 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

When an assessee presents a registered valuer's report for an asset, the Assessing Officer, if forming an opinion that the value claimed is less than the fair market value, must refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A(a). The AO cannot unilaterally reject the registered valuer's report or resort to Section 55A(b) in such a scenario.

CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh

309 ITR 233 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The full value of consideration for computing capital gains under Section 48 refers to the amount stated in the sale deed and cannot be substituted by the market value or a valuation by the DVO under Section 55A, unless there is evidence that the assessee actually received a consideration in excess of the stated amount.

48(SC) 2. Principal Commission of Income Tax v. NDR Promoters (P) Ltd.

96 Taxmann.com 602 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

The addition of share capital under Section 68 is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer issues summons to investor entities but receives no appearance, relying solely on submissions via DAK, raising doubts about investor identity and genuineness.

Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

150 ITR 643 · 1984 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.

CWT v. Raghunath Singh Thakur

304 ITR 268 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot reject a registered valuer's report without providing specific reasons or making a reference to the valuation, and in such cases, the registered valuer's report shall be accepted.

CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Inld. Vs. CIT

45 Taxmann.com 356 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot reduce the value adopted by the assessee based on a Registered Valuer's report if the value is claimed in accordance with the Registered Valuer's estimate. A reference to the DVO for ascertaining fair market value as on 1.4.1981 was not competent prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012.

CIT v. Smt. B.S. Shanthakumar

233 Taxmann 347 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Rs 80,63,610/- in C Block Vasant Vihar. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri

255 CTR 107 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

(i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends v. CIT

56 Taxmann.com 282 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 55A

Shripal Tejraj Munot, Dhule vs. Incoame-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Dhule

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 131/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.131/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shripal Tejraj Munot, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhule. 1816, Lane No.2, Opp. Jain Mandir, Dhule-424001. Pan : Abgpm9080R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri M. G. Jasnani : Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’S Order Dated 03.03.2021 Passed In Case No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2020- 21/1031172239(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In His Pleading Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 55A

Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Pune

ITA 933/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153

Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

ITA 932/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar, Pune

ITA 824/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

Vinod Anand, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-II, Faridabad

The Appeal is dismissed ex parte

ITA 639/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vinod Anand Vs. Dcit, House No. 2288, Circle-Ii, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Pannalal Hiralal Bachkaniwala (HUF), Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(2)Q, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 101/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.101/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pannalal Hiralal Bachkaniwala Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(2), (Huf), Surat. A. K. Road, Hiralal Colony, Himson Mills, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aachp3897A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 19/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54BSection 55A

Ranjitlal Chhaganlal Shah, Na

ITA 480/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Section 254(1)Section 55A

Mukesh A. Patel, Vapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.706/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh A Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi Ambalal Ni Wadi, Station Road, Vs. Nr. College Killa Pardi, Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bjhpp 0041 D (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surji D Chheda, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar– Sr.-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 55A

Aloke Ray, Kolkata vs. ACIT(Intt.Taxation), Cir.-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Kalyansundaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukunga Sema, ACIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 55A

Abhay Sapru, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6509/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Suman Malik, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 55A

Prathamesh Developers, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1596/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 17Section 55A

Machindra L. Bodke, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 9(3), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2829/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2829/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Machindra L. Bodke, A/P Gahunje, Maval Pune- 410 506. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aobpb9433R बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 9(3), Pune Assessee By : Dr. Vardhaman L. Jain Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Dr. Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55Section 55A

ITO (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Zubin Russi Jal Taraporevala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2056/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2056/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito (It)-4(1)(1), Zubin Russi Jal R. No. 1729, 17Th Floor, Taraporevala, बिधम/ C/O- R. R. Dalal & Co. Air India Building, Ca’S 514, Churchgate Vs. Nariman Point, Chambers, 5, New Marine Mumbai-400 021 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaapt6792J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Hero Rai, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.02.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 14.01.2019 U/S 143(3) For The Ay 2014-15 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, Ld. AR byFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Shri Subodh Laxmanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 1183/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 54

Shri Rajendra Laxmanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 3270/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 54

The ITO, Ward-3(2)(7), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Gautambhai Babarbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1807/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Shri Gautambhai Babarbhai Patel, Ward 3(2)(7), Vs 1, Laxmikunj Society, Isanpur Ahmedabad Vatva Road, Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382 443 Pan : Aknpp 4848 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Talsania, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, DR

Section 55A

Mamta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-68(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5966/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Mamta Gupta, Vs Acit, 686, Chowkbara Tooti, Sadar Bazaar, Circle-68(1), New Delhi-110006. New Delhi. Pan-Aanpg8214H Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022

Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Kum. Divyangana H. Parmar, Valsad vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

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

ITA 401/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.401/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Divyangana H. Parmar, Vs. The Acit, Vapi. Ground Floor, Divyankinj, Station Road, Bhilad, Vapi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acvpp5311Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhat, Ar Revenue By : Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Vls/Sas/300/17-18 Dated 23.05.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax, Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 18.02.2015. 2. When This Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Order Dated 12.07.2017, Passed By The Division Bench Of The Tribunal In Assessee’S Group Case In Ita No.2912/Ahd/2016 For The Ay.2012-13 On Identical & Similar Facts, Whereby The Issue Relating To Determination Of Index Cost Of Acquisition For Computing Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg), Has Been Discussed & Adjudicated In Favour Of Assessee. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Present Appeal Is Squarely Covered By The Aforesaid Order Of The Tribunal, A Copy Of Which Was Also Placed Before The Bench. Assessment Year.2012-13 Divyangana H. Parmar 3. Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr) For The Revenue, Nevertheless Relied Upon The Orders Of The Authorities Below.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 55A

G.C.Sivaraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2946/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.G.C.Sivaraj, V. The Dy. Commissioner Of 21, Prem Nivas, Income Tax, Psg Estate Colony, Peelamedu, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore-641 004. Coimbatore. [Pan: Bqips 4795 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 16A(5)Section 54FSection 55A