ANIL PANNALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

ITA 4663/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 November 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for immovable property transactions, the date of the registered deed is crucial for determining transfer. An allotment letter does not confer legal title. Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of the registered agreement (15.04.2017) is relevant for calculating the addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a flat for Rs. 1,06,00,000/-, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 1,53,60,500/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the difference as income. The assessee contended that the acquisition date was based on an allotment letter dated 07.09.2012, but the AO and CIT(A) considered the registered agreement date of 15.04.2017.

What were the issues?

Whether the date of allotment letter or the date of registered agreement is the relevant date for determining the transfer of immovable property for the purpose of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B),Section 53A,Section 17(1A),Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.09.2025Pronounced: 13.11.2025

Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 17.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. Even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. On the other hand, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore considering the non cooperative conduct of the assessee, I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte and on the basis of material available on file.

2 Anil Pannalal Jain., Mumbai.

3.

I have gone through the facts of case and heard at length. From the rec

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)(b)(B)

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →