Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2007 (8) TMI 498 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal Upholds CIT Decision on Property Valuation; Emphasizes CBDT Instruction The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision to delete an addition of Rs. 3,75,885 on account of property valuation. The Tribunal dismissed the ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal Upholds CIT Decision on Property Valuation; Emphasizes CBDT Instruction

                            The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision to delete an addition of Rs. 3,75,885 on account of property valuation. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, noting the tax effect was below Rs. 2 lakhs, contrary to CBDT Instruction No. 2, which prohibits appeals below this threshold to reduce unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the instruction on departmental authorities and cited judicial precedents supporting this stance. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition and upholding the CIT (Appeals) decision.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,75,885 on account of valuation of property.
                            2. Applicability of CBDT Instruction No. 2, dated 24-10-2005 regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 3,75,885 on Account of Valuation of Property:

                            The revenue was aggrieved by the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,75,885 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of the valuation of property. The CIT (Appeals) had deleted this addition based on the following observations:
                            - The assessee provided copies of bills for materials purchased and a valuation report from a registered valuer, which the AO did not find defective.
                            - The AO estimated the cost of construction without obtaining a valuation report from the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and relied on standard rates provided by the DVO.
                            - The AO did not compare the quality of construction and other relevant factors of the assessee's house with the standard rates.
                            - The AO did not provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard as required under section 142A(3) or by principles of natural justice.

                            Based on these observations, the CIT (Appeals) concluded that the AO's action could not be sustained and deleted the addition of Rs. 3,75,885. The Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT (Appeals) and upheld the deletion of the disallowance.

                            2. Applicability of CBDT Instruction No. 2, dated 24-10-2005:

                            The appeal was filed by the revenue despite the tax effect being less than Rs. 2,00,000, contrary to CBDT Instruction No. 2, dated 24-10-2005, which instructed that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below this threshold. The Tribunal noted:
                            - The tax effect in the instant appeal was less than Rs. 2 lakhs.
                            - The CBDT Instruction No. 2, dated 24-10-2005, was binding on the revenue, and the department should not have filed the appeal.
                            - Reliance was placed on the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Shri Vikram Bhatnagar and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Pithwa Engg. Works, which emphasized that the circular applies even to old cases with minimal tax effect.

                            The Tribunal further highlighted that these instructions aim to reduce unnecessary litigation and the burden on small assessees. The instructions were issued after considerable deliberation and are binding on all departmental authorities. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including decisions from the ITAT Special Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, supporting the binding nature of these instructions.

                            In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the tax effect in the appeal was undisputedly less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 2 lakhs and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision on merit, finding no valid reason to interfere with the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,75,885.

                            Judgment:
                            The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found