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 :

        2011 (2) TMI 48 - 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 orders fresh valuation for Swaroop Sagar property, confirms fair market value for Mumbai property The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of the Swaroop Sagar property to the Valuation Officer for determining the fair market ...
                      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 orders fresh valuation for Swaroop Sagar property, confirms fair market value for Mumbai property

                          The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of the Swaroop Sagar property to the Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value and to decide the issue de novo. Regarding the Mumbai property, the Tribunal confirmed the order to adopt the fair market value at Rs. 9,76,000/- as on 01.04.1981, as determined by the registered valuer, dismissing the department's appeal.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Determination of the sale value of Swaroop Sagar Property under Section 50C of the IT Act.
                          2. Adoption of fair market value for Mumbai property as on 01.04.1981.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          Issue 1: Determination of the Sale Value of Swaroop Sagar Property under Section 50C of the IT Act

                          Facts and Contentions:
                          - The assessee sold a property at Swaroop Sagar, Udaipur for Rs. 60,00,000/-.
                          - The Stamp Valuation Authority valued the property at Rs. 97,89,450/- for stamp duty purposes.
                          - The Assessing Officer (AO) adopted the higher value for calculating capital gains under Section 50C.
                          - The assessee argued that the property had construction restrictions due to its proximity to Swaroop Sagar Lake and was jointly owned, which should reduce its market value.

                          Legal Provisions and Tribunal's Findings:
                          - Section 50C(1) states that if the consideration received is less than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority, the latter value shall be deemed the full value of consideration.
                          - Section 50C(2) allows the AO to refer the valuation to a Valuation Officer if the assessee claims the Stamp Valuation Authority's value exceeds the fair market value.
                          - The Tribunal noted that the term "may" in Section 50C(2) should be read as "shall," implying that the AO is bound to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer if the assessee disputes the valuation.
                          - The AO did not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and did not accept the registered valuer's report provided by the assessee.

                          Decision:
                          - The Tribunal directed the AO to refer the valuation of the property to the Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value and to decide the issue de novo in accordance with the law.

                          Issue 2: Adoption of Fair Market Value for Mumbai Property as on 01.04.1981

                          Facts and Contentions:
                          - The assessee sold a flat in Mumbai for Rs. 80,00,000/-.
                          - The property was acquired through a gift, and the cost of acquisition was Rs. 96,600/- as on 29.09.1977.
                          - The assessee adopted the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 11,76,000/- based on a registered valuer's report.
                          - The AO did not accept this valuation, arguing that the property value could not have increased so significantly in four years. The AO determined the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 1,91,000/- using an annual growth rate of 18.52%.

                          Tribunal's Findings:
                          - The Tribunal emphasized that the opinion of a registered valuer, being a technical expert, should be given more weight than the AO's non-technical assessment.
                          - The registered valuer's second report, which valued the property at Rs. 9,76,000/-, was based on comparable sales and ready reckoner rates, which were not disputed by the AO.
                          - The Tribunal cited a precedent where the valuation by a registered valuer was preferred over the AO's assessment.

                          Decision:
                          - The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order to adopt the fair market value at Rs. 9,76,000/- as on 01.04.1981, as determined by the registered valuer.

                          Conclusion:
                          - The assessee's appeal regarding the Swaroop Sagar property was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer.
                          - The department's appeal regarding the Mumbai property was dismissed, upholding the fair market value determined by the registered valuer at Rs. 9,76,000/- as on 01.04.1981.
                          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