SULOCHANA SAIJAN MODI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 557/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2018-201924 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the allotment letter should be considered an 'Agreement to sell' and that the proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) applies if part of the consideration was paid before the sale agreement. The issue was restored to the AO for comparing stamp duty valuation on the allotment date with the transaction value.

What were the facts?

The assessee's property was registered at a stamp duty valuation higher than the transaction value. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the difference as income from other sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the allotment letter qualifies as an agreement for sale for the purpose of the proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b), and how to determine the relevant stamp duty valuation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH“G”, MUMBAI

Hearing: 11/05/2023Pronounced: 23/05/2023

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai which the

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)(b)

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →