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

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

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

ITA 141/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

Jayendrabhai Kantilal Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 1732/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 55A

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sumanben Jashvantbhai Patel, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3), Surat

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

ITA 80/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Biaayananda Prusetharaet After &./Ita No.80/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 55A

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 125/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 124/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

Hari Singh Chauhan, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 3(5), Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

Kuber Vasantrao Kenjale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Pune

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

ITA 2331/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 54ESection 54F

Pranab Kumar Dana, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 539/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54E

Bhaskardev Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Durgapur

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

ITA 1882/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1882/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Bhaskardev Mukherjee, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Durgapur Nadiha, Durgapur, Burdwan-713218 Pan No. : Allpm 4097 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. Shri Somnath Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was The Submission Of The Ld.Ar That In The Course Of Assessment The Ao Has Made The Additions Representing 50C Value In Respect Of Two Immovable Properties Sold By The Assessee. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Had Requested For Valuation Of The Said Properties. It Was The Submission That Before Completion Of The Assessment, The Valuation Was Not Received. It Was The Submission That The Valuation Has Not Been Received From The Dvo On 20.01.2025. The Valuation Report Along With Calculation As Submitted By The Ld. Ar Is As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Jaswin Kaur Sethi, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21 Jaswin Kaur Sethi, Vs Dcit, 218, Regency Park, International Taxation, Dlf Phase Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Enmps7327R

For Appellant: Ms Meenal Goyal CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55(2)(b)

Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr.CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Sodhan, AR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194Section 263Section 31Section 54

Sejalben Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr.CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Sodhan, AR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194Section 263Section 31Section 54

Kalptaru Infrabuild, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT-3 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Sukh Pal Singh, Sanjauli vs. ITO, Ward-2, Shimla

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 535/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.535/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sukh Pal Singh Ito बनाम/ Sheela Niwas, Chalaunti Ward No-2 Vs. Sanjauli, Hp 171006. Shimla. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aymps-5057-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 22-11-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Assessment Of Long Term

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54FSection 55A

Antony Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 815/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.815/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Antony Sunil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 59, 11Th Trust Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bxbps7987P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 415 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)Section 69

Teckmen Systems, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the above terms

ITA 28/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. P. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50CSection 55A

Ram Bhuvan Yadav, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur

ITA 325/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Bhuvan Yadav Villa No.Cb-3, Romanceque, G.E. Road, Labhandih, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Abbpy6681R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 16ASection 23ASection 24Section 34ASection 35Section 37Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Sushila Jalindhar Patole, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhpaur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1058/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1058/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sushila Jalindhar Patole, V The Income Tax Officer, 84/1, E Ward Patole Mala, New S Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. Palace Road, Karvir, Kolhapur – 416003. Maharashtra. Pan: Eogpp8290P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2025. Though Ld.Cit(A) Has Mentioned A.Y.2010-11 In The Heading, But In The Body Of The Order A.Y.2011-12 Is Mentioned Which Is Correct Assessment Year.

Section 250Section 55A