LAXMAN KANAIYALAL DHARMANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

ITA 5675/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 December 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)10 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii) (as it stood prior to the amendment for inadequate consideration) was not applicable as the assessee had surrendered the old flat as consideration for the new one. For the additional area purchased, the consideration paid exceeded the stamp duty value.

What were the facts?

The assessee exchanged an old flat for a larger new flat in a redevelopment project. The Assessing Officer treated the difference between the stamp duty value of the new flat and the consideration paid (including the surrendered old flat) as income under Section 56(2)(x). The CIT(A) directed the AO to re-compute this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) regarding inadequate consideration apply to property received in exchange for an old property during redevelopment, and whether the amended provisions can be applied retrospectively.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 56(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP &

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR, Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.11.2025

Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 01.09.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19. The assessee raised the following grounds: “Each ground in without prejudice to each other. The grounds of appeal are taken hereunder:

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal (hereinafter for sake of brevity referred to as the "Ld. CTT(A)") has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Offic

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →