“Section 56(2)(x)(b)”

MR. SHRIDHAR GANGARAM ANUMANDALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,18,80,887/- under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and a further addition of Rs. 1,17,61,180/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, aggregating ... available on record. It is observed that the assessment was completed by making total additions of Rs. 2,36,42,067/- under sections 56(2)(x)(b) and 69 of the Act. The assessee has contended that the valuation report of the DVO was not considered

VIKAS BEDPRAKASH PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Bedprakash Pandey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1102 Riddhi Tower, Riddhi Garden 41(4)(4),Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- Film City Road, Malad E Mumbai- 400051. 400097. Pan/Gir No: Anwpp9823B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pankaj Kumar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO did not accept reliance of the assessee on the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act by observing that it was effective from 01.04.2019 (AY 2019-20). 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal ... value. Since the difference was not more than 10% of the transaction value, the addition is against law. The appellant referred to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and submitted that the difference was within the permissible variation in the Act itself. He relied on the decisions

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. VARUN JAISINGH ASHER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disregarded the tenancy agreement, and treating it as a colourable devise and tax the value of flat receipt under section 56(2)(x)(b) as income from other sources. Ignoring the nature as considering for surrender of tenancy rights being a capital asset. Ld. AO also denied the benefit ... clauses the stamp duty value could be treated as deemed income. By not specifying whether Section 56(2)(x)(a) or Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act was applicable, the A.O. first of all has not given reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the assessee. Assessee would

VIKAS SATISH KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 13(3)(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Satish Khanna, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle 13(3)(2), 102, Green Acres Apartment, 61/B, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020. Pali Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan/Gir No: Ahzpk7423R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashwin Chhag Respondent By Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Since the difference was not more than 10% of the transaction value, the addition is against law. The appellant referred to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and submitted that the difference was within the permissible variation in the Act itself. He relied on the decision ... Shreyas Naynesh Modi vs. ITO [ITA No.4453/Mum/2024 dated 23.01.2026 (AY 2018-19)]. He submitted that the 2 Vikas Satish Khanna amendment to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act is a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences and is retrospective in nature. Therefore, no addition was needed because

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

transactions has been arrived at Rs. 5,13,339/-, which was added to the income of assessee by the ld. AO under section 56(2)(x)(B) r.w.s. 50C(1) of the act. While making the aforesaid addition, the ld. AO referred to the provisions of section 56(2)(x ... B) and concluded that the amendment in in 2019 and 2021 in section 56(2)(x)(B) would apply prospective, so the entire amount of difference being the stamp duty valuation was on higher side shall be added to the income of assessee, without the benefit of tolerance % as introduced

CHERIE TANDON SALDAHNA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

stamp duty valuation/market value and\nconsideration of purchase, i.e. amounting to INR 1,14,87,300, should not be\nadded under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. However, until the assessment\norder was finalised, the assessee did not file her response. Accordingly, the\nAssessing Officer (“AO”), vide ... passed under section\n143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, made an addition of INR\n1,14,87,300 under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act to the total income of the\nassessee.\n5. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, disagreed with the\nsubmissions

MANSUKHLAL MOHANLAL MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

section 144B vide order dated 26.04.2021. In the said assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 66,70,000/- under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) on account of difference between the stamp duty value of property and consideration shown by the assessee. Consequent thereto, penalty proceedings under

MEENA ARJUN NARANG,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

addition of Rs. 12,36,000 made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") under the head "Income from Other Sources" in terms of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in respect of the difference between the agreement value and the stamp duty value ... Accordingly, the 4 Meena Arjun Narang difference of Rs. 12,36,000/- is hit by the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The date of agreement in present matter was 03.11.2017. 5. On the basis of aforesaid information, the case of assessee was selected

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

MANEKCHAND DEVICHAND BAFNA HUF,MUMBAI vs. NFAC/ ITO, WARD-19(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Manekchand Devichand Bafna Ito-19(2)(2) Huf Piramal Chamber 2/22, Racha Building No. 2 Steater Vs. Lalbaugh, Parel Road, Tardeo Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 007. Pan : Aaehm0193G Appellant Respondent

only, which is admittedly not more than 10% the tolerance limit, as introduced in section 56(2)(x)(b)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the addition of Rs. 3,91,000/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act by Assessing Officer and affirmed by Ld. Commissioner, is unsustainable

ZULEKHA HAJI ATTARWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(1), LALBAUG

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the\nassessee are dismissed

nZulekha Haji Attarwala, Mumbai\nRealtors was Rs.48,56,250/- towards purchase of immovable property.\nAs per the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, Stamp duty\nvalue was required to be taken into consideration. The stamp duty value i.e.\nMarket Value of the property in question ... Rs.41,50,908/- i.e. Rs 20,75,454/-\nwas added to the total income of the assessee, being deemed income\nunder section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act.\n\n3.1 It was further noted by the AO from the ITR that the assessee\nhad shown Long Term Capital Gain

LAXMAN KANAIYALAL DHARMANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

extent of 961 sq ft) exceeds the above consideration, the AO is directed to add the difference amount in terms of section 56(2)(x)(b). iii. The Appellant is directed to furnish all relevant details before the AO for the purpose of computing the 'consideration' as per 'i' above

DINESH SUNDERRAO GHOSALKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 7(3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

further submitted that, assessee purchased two industrial units situated at Parvati Industrial Estate, Lower Parel, Mumbai. The Ld.AO invoked Section 56(2)(x)(b)(3) of the Act and computed and made addition of the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the agreement value under the head “other sources

ANIL PANNALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Acquisition/Transfer The fundamental issue in this case is determining the date when the assessee acquired the immovable property for the purposes of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contends that the property was acquired on 07.09.2012 when the allotment letter was issued ... agreements to sell do not create any legal title in the property until they are registered in accordance with law. ii. Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) Applicability and Computation Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as applicable from AY 201718, provides that where