Azhar Rahaman Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

An Intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by CPC, Bengaluru on 21.07.2020, determining the total income of the Assessee at Rs.8,17,214/-. The Assessee filed an Appeal against this intimation before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ld. CIT(A)). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal on 27.02.2026. The Assessee then filed the present Appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) did not refer the subject property to the DVO for ascertaining fair market value, which is a violation of section 50(2) of the Act.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) violated section 50(2) of the Act by not referring the subject property to the DVO?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Aero Pack Products Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

• Meera Sonthalia vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Asansol

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Raghvendra Singh

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019Allowed

• Mayur Kanubhai Shah vs ITO, Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench 'E', Mumbai benchAY 2016-17Remanded

• Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai “D” Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• ACIT, Circle 28 (1), New Delhi vs. Maninder Singh

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ benchAY 2015-16Dismissed