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

Jugesh Saluja, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 55A

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, both the revenue appeals, ITA No

ITA 52/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, both the revenue appeals, ITA No

ITA 50/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rumalji Bhikhaji Thakor Legal Heir of Late Shri Bhikaji Jamaji Thakor, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 545/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleit(Ss)A No. 545/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchika Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158BSection 54BSection 55A

Virendrakumar Ratilal Bhakta, Bardoli vs. ITO(International Taxation), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 55A

Vijay Pal Singh, Hardoi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

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

ITA 56/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147ASection 50CSection 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

Mr. Shridhar Gangaram Anumandala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 8391/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 50Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

Ratibhai Girdharbhai Kakani, Surat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 250Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

Bhikhabhai Kalidas Padhiyar, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 147Section 250Section 55A

Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 4, Thane

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

ITA 6522/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkundan Jayantilal Bhatt Ito Cirlce-4, 277, Kundan Bunglow Room No. 2, Ashar Behind Yashwant Heights, Vs. It Park, 6Th Floor, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Road No. 16Z, Virar (West), Shivansai, Wagle Industrial Thane, Maharashtra – Estate, Thane, 401 303 Maharashtra- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Adjpb4878K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 142ASection 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

Gyasuddin Mohammad Ansari, Purnia vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Purnea

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 311/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80Section 80E

Chandrashekhar Vishnu Paranjpe (HUF), Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 1587/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora andFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Tp) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6051/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Jyoti Embroidery Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 10 (2)(1), V1-0 Vara’S House, 1St Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Ganeshwadi, Ground Floor, Mumbai – 400020. Near Mj Market, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400002 Pan – Aaacj 0872 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.07.2025 Impugned Herein Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’) For The Ay 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Sold A Land To M/S. Yogeshwar Farms Private Limited For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- & Claimed The Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed On Dated 28Th September, 2013, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1,57,50,330/-. The Ao Considered The Said Claim Of The Assessee & Ultimately Found That The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property Is Of 2 Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited Rs.387,39,000/- & The Assessee Has Sold The Property For Rs.2,15,00,000/- I.E. Less Than The Value Adopted Or Assessed By The Valuation Authorities Of The State Government & Therefore He Vide Assessment Order Dated 25.09.2017 Under Section 143 (3) Read With Under Section 147 Of The Act, Ultimately Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,72,39,000/- Being Differential Amount Between The Stamp Duty Valuation & The Value Declared By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. SR. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 250Section 55

Indian City Properties Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriSanjay Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Roopa Jagadish, Mysuru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 972/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran &
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 55A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur vs. Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 41(1)Section 50CSection 55A

M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A