The Delhi HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT order that upheld the CIT(A) decision to delete additions under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, holding the AO cannot bypass mandatory DVO referrals.
The appeal and the pending application are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~33
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Lakshmi Gurung, Senior Standing Counsel , Mr.Tushar Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr.Siddharth Gupta, Advocate.
versus
M/S MODERN LACE HOUSE ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
O R D E R % 06.08.2019
C.M.No.1736/2019 (Delay)
ITA 30/2019
ITA 30/2019 Page 1 of 4
deleting an addition of Rs. 4,58,68,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO), based on the value adopted by the Stamp Duty Officer in terms of Section 50 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’)?
ITA 30/2019 Page 2 of 4
ITA 30/2019 Page 3 of 4
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
AUGUST 06, 2019 mr
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the AO could proceed without a DVO valuation report after a specific reference request was made more than one month before the completion deadline.
Whether the CIT(A) and ITAT erred in deleting additions based on Section 50C read with the Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
Whether the appeal against the impugned order raises any substantial question of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Meenakshi v. ACITApplied¶17
N. Meenakshi v. ACIT [2010] 326 ITR 229 (Madras)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax-15
M/S Modern Lace House
S. Muralidhar
Talwant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
