Section 55A of the Income Tax Act

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
88
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
66
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
55
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
27
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
23
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
15
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
15
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
12
citing judgments
Rs 80,63,610/- in C Block Vasant Vihar. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri
255 CTR 107 · 2013 · High Court
10
citing judgments
(i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends v. CIT
56 Taxmann.com 282 · 2015 · High Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 55A

Sonali Roy, Kolkata vs. PCIT-17, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1329/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Sonali Roy V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of V-5, Block-B, Meena Income Tax-17, Residency, Baguihati, Maniktala, Uttarapan Kolkata-59 Complex, Civic Centre, [Pan No.Afppr 4436 P] Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17, Kolkata Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2015 U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. That The Findings Of Ld. Pr. Clt Kolkata-17 That Assessing Officer First Recorded His Decision Of Referring The Matter To Ova In The Order Sheet & Then Passing Of Order U/S 143(3) Was Recorded Do Not Support The Languages Used In Section 55A Of It Act, 1961 Which Speaks For Actual Reference To Dvo But Not "Decision" To Make Reference. 2. That The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-17 Having Admitted That Reference To Dvo & Passing Of Order U/S 143(3) Had Been Done On The Same Day Is Wrong & Unjustified In Drawing Conclusion That The Decision For Referring To Dvo Was Taken Before Passing Order U/S 143(3) Without Any Other Supporting Evidence.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

ITO 8(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vertex Manufcturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3107/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito 8(3)(4), R.No.217, Vs. M/S. Vertex Manufacturing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Co. Ltd., Vertex Vikas, A, 6Th Marg,Mumbai – 400 020 Floor, 222, Sir Mathuradas Vissanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv2450N Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 54E

ITO, Ward-31(2), Kolkata vs. Smt. Namita Chowdhury, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1595/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Aloke Kumar Ghosh
Section 2Section 53ASection 54Section 55A

Oaknet Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2097/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Eco Auto Components Lmited, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1967/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Vs. M/S. Eco Auto Components Ltd., Dcit, Faridabad Plot No. 20, Sector-6, Faridabad Pan : Aaace3659C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Respondent By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2018 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 142ASection 55ASection 56(2)Section 69Section 69A

Sh. Anil Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 3777/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, Circle -5(1), New Delhi Sh. Anil Jain, B- 2/18, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaipj2615C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 55A

Maruti G.Thopte, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 54FSection 55A

ITO 13(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Rekha Pravin Shah, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4140/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(2)(3) Smt. Rekha Pravin Shah 425, Aayakar Bhavan 601, “Golden Sobhagya” Vs. 4Th Floor, M.K. Marg 6Th Floor, B-81, Rajendra Mumbai-400020. Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015 Pan No. Aaeps2402C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Jignesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

DCIT, Cir-33, Kolkata vs. M/S Estate of Late Lai Yun Hsiang Liu, AOP, Kolkata

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

ITA 984/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Jaladhar Panja, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 55A

Late Shri Gordhandas S. Garodia, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5097/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram a/sFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 767/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish V. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vidusha Kalra
Section 10Section 14A

Shri Ashwinbhai Kantilal Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 927/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrin.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raj Deep Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 55A

Nirmala Ravikant Wayale, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 3(4), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 300/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Nirmala Ravikant Wayale Income Tax Officer Ward- 103, Triveni Dhara. Wayale Nagar, 3(4), Kalyan Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Vs. Pin-421301 Pan No. Aaopw3944K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 23-08-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 01-09-2017

Section 143(3)Section 55A

Sonia Goel vs. I.T.O, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

ITA/703/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 55Section 55A

Sonia Goel vs. I.T.O, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

ITA - 703 / 2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2017
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 55Section 55A

Commissioner of Income Tax Ajm vs. M/S India Motors Pvt Ltd Ajmer

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/901/2008HC Rajasthan26 Aug 2017
Section 115JSection 47Section 48Section 53ASection 55A

C I T Ajmer vs. M/S Aditya Mills Ltd

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed

ITA/935/2008HC Rajasthan26 Aug 2017
Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 55A

M/S Swati Handloom Industries, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3500/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 55A

Allo N Davar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(2)1, Mumbai

ITA 8377/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri P.B Chhapgar & N.A. Patade-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Section 143Section 54

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Suratchandra B. Thakkar -HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.424/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit 24(2) C-13, 6Th Floor, बिधम/ Surat Chandra B. Thakkar- Huf Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vs. 67-A, Vithal Nagar Chs Rd Bandra (E) Mumbai 12, Jvpd Scheme Juhu Pin: 400051 Mumbai Pin: 400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahto788G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe (Dr) Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- (I) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Had No Jurisdiction To Refer The Case For Valuation To The M/S. Surat Chandra B. Thakkar Huf

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mundhe (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54F