SUDHANSHU INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHANDUP(W) vs. CIRCLE 15(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

ITA 7654/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the third proviso to Section 50C(1), which provides a tolerance limit for the difference between stamp duty valuation and sale consideration, is curative in nature. Therefore, it should be applied retrospectively from the date of insertion of Section 50C. The difference in this case was within the permissible tolerance limit.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold two properties during the assessment year 2018-19. The stamp duty valuation of these properties was higher than the actual sale consideration received. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 56(2)(x) and made an addition for the difference between the market value and sale consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the benefit of the third proviso to Section 50C(1) regarding tolerance in stamp duty valuation applies retrospectively to the assessment year in question?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 50C(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Surji Chheda (Virtually present), AR
For Respondent: Dr. Raghvendra P. Chambolkar, DR 12.02.2026
Pronounced: 20.02.2026

Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 18.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, arises from the order u/s 143(3) dated 23.03.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Sudhanshu Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.

“Ground No: 1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law to confirm addition of Rs.5,13,339/-u/s 56(2)(X) made by learned AO.

Ground No: 2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not following bin

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)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →