MAHESH KATRAGADDA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(x) applies to 'any immovable property' and is wider than the definition of 'capital asset'. The exclusion of rural agricultural land from 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) is not relevant for Section 56(2)(x). The contention regarding the tolerance limit was also rejected.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased agricultural land, declaring a consideration lower than the stamp duty value. The Pr. CIT invoked Section 263, directing the AO to reframe the assessment. The AO made an addition under Section 56(2)(x) for the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp duty value.
What were the issues?
Whether Section 56(2)(x) is applicable to agricultural land not considered a capital asset and whether the difference between purchase consideration and stamp duty value falls within the tolerance limit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 132,Section 143(2),Section 56(2)(x),Section 2(14),Section 153A,Section 153C,Section 34(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.2,379 citing459 ITR 212 · 2023 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
आदेशकी �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. िनधा�रती/The Assessee : Shri Mahesh Katragadda, 8-2- 293/82/A/839-1, Road No.42, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 2. राज�/ The Revenue : The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026