SUJATA PRAKASH JAWALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7572/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 March 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI ( (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that agricultural land, as defined in Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, is excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' and therefore Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased agricultural land along with co-owners for Rs. 60,00,000, but the stamp duty value was Rs. 5,64,00,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and added the difference to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable to the purchase of agricultural land, and whether the land in question qualifies as agricultural land for exclusion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, A/R
For Respondent: Shri Limbasiya Kavan Nareshkumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.02.2026Pronounced: 13.03.2026

Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: The present appeal arises out of the order dated 12/09/2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Chennai [hereinafter “the Ld.CIT(A)] for A.Y. 2014-15 on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening made u/s 147 of the Act as the same is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.44,75,913/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the a

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 →