Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Section 50C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mr. Sajjanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs Ito Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai on 5 September, 2022
9. On the contrary, we are of the view that the
decision rendered by another co-ordinate bench
in the case of Mr Sajjanraj Mehta (supra) is
applicable to the facts of the present case. The
decision rendered in the case of Mr Sajjanraj
Mehta by the co-ordinate bench is extracted
below, for the sake of convenience:-
Section 155 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 43CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Radha Kishan Kungwani, Ajmer vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Ajmer on 19 August, 2020
Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar,, Pune vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6(2),, Pune on 30 April, 2019
c) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar v/s ITO
Ward - 6(2), Pune ITA No.1747/PN/2018
dtd. 30/04/2019(Pune) (Trib)
Where date of agreement for fixing amount
of consideration for purchase of a plot of
land and date of registration of sale deed
were different but assessee, prior to date of
agreement, had paid a part of consideration
by cheque, provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b)
being fulfilled, stamp value as on date of
agreement should be applied for purpose of
said section
Mohd. Ilyas Chowdhary, Mumbai vs Ito 21(3(3), Mumbai on 10 April, 2017
f) Mohd. Ilyas Ansari v. ITO-23(2)(3),Mumbai
[ITA No. 6174/M/2017dtd.06/11/2020,
186 ITD 407 (Mumbai - Trib.)]
Where Assessing Officer mechanically
applied provisions of section 56(2)to
difference between stamp duty value and
actual sale consideration paid by assessee
and made additions, without making any
efforts to find out actual cost of property,
additions made by Assessing Officer were
to be set aside."
Shri. Siraj Ahmed Jamalbhai Bora, ... vs Ito Ward 1(3)(1), Mumbai on 26 March, 2021
a) "Siraj Ahmed Jamalbhai Bora vs. ITO
Ward-1(3)(1)ITA No. 1886/M/2019 dtd.
1