MARVEL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED,KADUGODI VEERA SWAMY REDDY COLONY vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), ITO, BANGALORE
What were the facts?
The assessee, a real estate developer, purchased land for ₹15,750,000. An impounded sale agreement indicated the land's value as ₹98,010,000. The Assessing Officer added the difference of ₹82,260,000 to the assessee's income under Section 28(iv).
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired land valued at ₹98,010,000 for a consideration of ₹15,750,000, resulting in a taxable benefit of ₹82,260,000 under Section 28(iv). The contention that the benefit was not real or that it would be offset by increased cost of acquisition was rejected.
What were the issues?
Whether the difference between the purchase price of land and its higher value indicated in an earlier agreement constitutes a taxable benefit under Section 28(iv). Whether the benefit received in the form of land acquired at a lower value is taxable as income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
PER SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT
Marvel Infrabuild Private Limited, the appellant, has filed ITA No. 2206/Bangalore/2024 for assessment year 2014–15
ITA 2206/BANG/2024 MARVEL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED
against the appellate order dated 12 December 2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [learned CIT(A)]. By that order, the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the asse
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.
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 28(iv)
- Bharat Cottage Industries, Mumbai vs Circle 41(4)(1), MumbaiITA 2904/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Lotus Refineries Private Limited, Chandigarh vs ACIT, ChandigarhITA 450/CHANDI/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- JCIT(OSD), Range-10, ITO C.R. Building vs Gem Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd., Shanti NiketanITA 1227/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- DCIT Circle Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar vs Rajena Agro Products Private Limited, PatanITA 2096/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
- Poonam Aggarwal, Paonta Sahib vs Income Tax Officer Nahan, NahanITA 327/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Smita Chawda vs. Aadharshila Developers PVT LTD.Chhattisgarh · 6 Oct 2026
- Sahil vs. M/S Aadharshila Developers PVT LTD.Chhattisgarh · 6 Oct 2026
- Mayank Arc And Electrodes Private Limited & Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner CGST Laxmi Nagar Division & Ors.Delhi · 6 Oct 2026
- Jogender Proprietor Of M/S J.K. Construction vs. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals-Ii) & Anr.Delhi · 6 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Murugan Tyres vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1/ The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 6 Oct 2026