PURVI NIHAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 470/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 June 2026AY 2018-198 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 99,00,536, but the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 1,11,41,000. The Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 12,40,464 under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B). The assessee later submitted additional evidence showing the property was allotted in 2010-11 for Rs. 82,88,000, with a ready reckoner value of Rs. 52,99,247.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), the stamp duty valuation on the date of allotment (2010-11) should be considered, not the date of registration. The additional evidence submitted by the assessee was admitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the stamp duty valuation on the date of allotment or the date of registration should be considered for the purpose of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) when an allotment letter was issued earlier. Whether additional evidence submitted before the Tribunal should be admitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 50C,Section 155,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Manek (Virtually Appeared)
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 17/06/2026Pronounced: 22/06/2026

Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 21.11.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 28.02.2024. 2 Purvi Nihal Shah

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return declaring total income Rs.2,80,800/-. The information was received that the asses

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 →