← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(x)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)(b)107 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(x)(b) is Allied Motors v. CIT (297 ITR 322), cited in 59 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x)(b)

Allied Motors v. CIT
297 ITR 322 · 2008 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

An amendment to a section is declaratory and clarifies the existing legal position, rather than introducing a new rule.

Sai Bhargavanath Infra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax*
144 Taxmann.com 168 · 2022 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, taxes the difference between consideration and stamp duty value as deemed income when an asset other than land or building is transferred for less than the stamp duty value. A proviso to Section 43CA allows for a tolerance band of 10% difference.

Mubarak Gafur Korabu v. ITO
117 Taxmann.com 828 · 2020 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with income from acquisition of property for inadequate consideration, does not apply to agricultural land purchased by an assessee, as it is not considered a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act.

Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward
185 ITD 433 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

For the purpose of determining income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) or 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value or fair market value of immovable property is to be considered as on the date of payment made by the assessee towards booking of the property, where an agreement for purchase and payment of consideration has been made prior to the date of registration.

CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara
310 ITR 105 · 2009 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

The proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act is retrospective in nature and should be read into the block assessment scheme. The Supreme Court viewed that no statute should be construed to have a retrospective operation unless clearly indicated or by necessary implication, noting that assessments create vested rights.

CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises
299 ITR 348 · 2008 · High Court
13
citing judgments

A family arrangement or settlement does not give rise to any income. This is because it represents the working out of existing rights among family members rather than a transfer of property.

211 (Mumbai Trib) and (iii) Ashutosh Jha v. ITO
190 ITD 450 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Section 56(2)(x) cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions entered into before its incorporation in the statute.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(x)(b)

Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar Karanth, Pune vs. Income Tax Department CIT(Drp-3), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 147/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 6

value over the purchase consideration is less than 10% of the consideration, we are of the considered view that the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are not applicable to the present case. Since on this short ground only the assessee is entitled to relief ... present case, admittedly the variation is purchase consideration and the fair market value is 9.14%, no addition was warranted in terms of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, addition of INR ITA No.147/PUN/2025 [A] 3,86,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed

Vasant N. Barabde, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vasant Nagorao Barabde Vs Dcit Circle 27(3), 602, Sanskar Santi Park, Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Income Tax Officer, Vashi Mumbai 400088 Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai 400703 Pan: Acmpb3211G Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Appeal No: Nfac/2017- 18/10041561 Dated 23.08.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 08.03.201 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 By Treating The Market Value Of The Paa Agreement Registered On 21.09.2017 As Taxable Income U/S 56(2)(X) Being Value Of Property For Which No Consideration Is Paid. 2. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 In The Hands Of The Assessee Instead Of Treating The Same As Exempt In The Hands Ashwini Barabde The Daughter Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

make the addition of Rs.2,88,85,600/- being the stamp duty value for which no consideration was paid, by applying section 56(2)(x)(b)(B). Since, nothing came up from the assessee, he completed the assessment by making the addition of aforesaid amount u/s.56(2)(x)(b)(B ... assessee but would have no bearing on the taxability in either hands. 7.1. Ld. AO has resorted to provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) for the purpose of making addition in the hands of the assessee which is bad in law as it falls under the head “income