APARNA SANDEEP KULKARANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 909/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 October 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the two transactions were independent and the benefit of the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not be applied. The contention of non-monetary consideration was also rejected. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to determine any loss on the cancellation of the first flat.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially purchased a flat in 2009 for Rs. 67,30,680. This agreement was cancelled in 2014, and a new flat was purchased for Rs. 1,07,00,000, while its stamp duty value was Rs. 1,35,93,400. The Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 28,93,400 under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

What were the issues?

Whether the transaction of purchasing a new flat after cancelling an old one constitutes two independent transactions for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)? Whether the cancellation of the first agreement resulted in a capital loss to be considered?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 147,Section 144C(13),Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 2(47)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 “I” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), dt. 12-12-2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, consequent to the directions given by the CIT(DRP-1)-Mumbai-1, pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Dispute Resolution Panel, hereinafter referred to as the "DRP", has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,93,400/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as per the Draft Assessment Order. The DRP has erred in not appreciating correct facts of the ca

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)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →