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

Rameshchandra Ramdhan Agrawal, Akola vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Akola

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe (through virtual)
Section 50ASection 55A

Sudam Sakharam Jadhav, Pune vs. ITO, Wad-8(3), Pune

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

ITA 2119/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2119/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sudam Sakharam Jadhav, The Income Tax Officer, Gat No.440, Jadhavwadi Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Chikhali, Pune – 410501. Pan: Akgpj 6314 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 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), Pune-13, Dated 26.11.2019 For The A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Appreciating The Fact That Due To Valid & Sufficient Reasons Your Appellant Could Not Attend The Hearing & Without Considering The Merit Of The Case, Your Appellant Prays For Set Aside The Matter To The Cit (Appeals) In The Interest Of Principal Of Natural Justice. 2. Without Prejudice To The Above Ground, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Restricting The Indexed Value Of 1981 To Rs. 1,22,796/- Against Rs. 15,82,423/- As Claimed By Your Appellant. Such Action Is Bad In Law As At The Relevant Point Of Time, Section 55A Of Income Tax Act Was Not Permitting Of Making Any Such Reference For Determining Value As On Sudam Sakharam Jadhav (A)

Section 54FSection 55A

Rajo Devi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7279/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year 2010-11 Smt. Rajo Devi, The Income Tax Officer, W/O. Reshram, Ward-32(1), Room No.1804, 76, Asola Village, Vs. Fatehpur Beri, 11Th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic New Delhi – 110 074. Centre, New Delhi–110 001. Pan Atwpr3396M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ca & Shri Pawan Kumar, Ca For Revenue : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55ASection 68

Jitendra Shantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-14(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2360/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2011-12 Jitendra Shantilal Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3) 2, Ajubhai Park, Ahmedabad. Opp: Panetar Party Plot Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380 059. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 17.10.2018 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In His Appeal As Under: “1. Order Bad In Law: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals - 4 Grossly Erred To Uphold Order Of Assessing Officer Disrespecting Order Of Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court. 2. Order Passed Overlooking Judicial Discipline & Precedents: 2

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 250(6)Section 55A

Vasant Hanumant Buchade, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 10(2), Pune

ITA 48/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Pun/2019 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Vasant Hanumant Buchade, 1-Near Marathi School, Marunje,Mulshi, Pune – 411 057 .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Abcpb7907L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 55A

Anup Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 965/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Shah, 9/253 Sunny Side Building, Prof U U Bhat Marg, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan: Aafps0147K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ashok Patil Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Nfac)] Dated 27.04.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1 The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.15,65,250/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Only) U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, To The Total Returned Income Without Enquiring Into The Facts & 2 Ita No. 965 Mum 2021-Anup Shah

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

Shri Mukeshbhai Bhagabhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Patan Ward-5, Mehsana

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1430/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2011-12 Mukesh Bhagabhai Patel Vs. Ito, Patan-Ward-5 38/2, Krishnanagar Mehsana. Sector 26, Gandhinagar Gujarat. Pan : Afvpp 9008 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.B. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandy, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Gandhinagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 14.08.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, It Was Stated That The Issue In The Present Appeal Related To Determination Of Fair Market Value Of The Cost Of Asset Sold By The Assessee As On 1.4.1981 For The Purpose Of Determining The Cost Of Acquisition Thereof For Computing The Capital Gain Earned On Sale Of Land. The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Stated That Several Grounds Had Been Raised By The Assessee In His Appeal, But Before Us Arguments Vis-À-Vis Only Ground No.5 Were Being Made. 2

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandy, Sr.DR
Section 142ASection 250(6)Section 55A

Zaverchand Gaekwad Limited vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (4)

Appeal is allowed by answering the substantial question of law

TAXAP/869/2009HC Gujarat14 Sept 2022
Section 147Section 55A

Zaverchand Gaekwad Limited vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (4)

Appeal is allowed by answering the substantial question of law

TAXAP/870/2009HC Gujarat14 Sept 2022
Section 147Section 55A

Zaverchand Gaekwad Limited vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (4)

Appeal is allowed by answering the substantial question of law

TAXAP/866/2009HC Gujarat14 Sept 2022
Section 55A

The Wagra Taluka Co. Operative Marketing & Processing Society Ltd., Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Wagra Taluka Co-Operative I.T.O. Marketing & Processing Society Ward 1(5), Vs. Limited, Bharuch. At & Post:Wagra, Taluka- Wagra, District - Bharuch (Gujarat). M. No. 8128950676 E.Mail: Mrmconsultants@Yahoo.Com Pan: Aaaat 2404 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 254(1)

Shri Balvantbhai Narottambhai Patel, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Surat

ITA 1440/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Shri Balvantbhai Narottambhai Patel, I.T.O. 129, Kesariu Faliyu Masma Olpad, Ward 2(2)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Bkapp 1881 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 54BSection 55A

Shri Arvindbhai Popatlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(4), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 374/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: 02/06/2022
Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 55A

Hemant Vithalrao Waje, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Nashik

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.651/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Hemant Vithalrao Waje, 57, Ashok Nagar, Ganesh Peth, Sinnar, Dist. Nashik, Pin – 422 103 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aampw3885H

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 55Section 55A

Smt. Raginiben D. Pandya, Na

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 345/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.345/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt. Raginiben Devendrabhai Pandya Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, E-26, Shantivan Society-1, Rangpuja Building, Swapnalok Vs. Kaliyawad, Navsari Complex, Nr. Kaliawadi Bridge, Junathana, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdxpp 0899 P (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 55A

Sushiladevi R. Somani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 5795/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 55A

Smt. Bhanuben Dhanji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 23 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7711/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50Section 50C

Rajnikant Surajram Bachkaniwala, Vesu vs. Aciit (OSD), Ward-2(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 88/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Rajnikant Surajram Bachkaniwla, Vs. The Acit (Osd), Plot No.12/A, Sai Enclave, Ward-2(1)(3), U.M. Road, Surat. Narmad University Road, Vesu, Surat-395007. Pan : Abjpm9268Q (Appellant) (Respondednt)

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 55A

Smt. Monica Chattopadhya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-28(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2369/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

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

ITA 931/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