“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Tushar Ramnath Shetty, Andheri East vs. The Imcome Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3074/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

above grounds of appeal. The sole grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, being the difference between the consideration and stamp duty value of the immovable property acquired by the assessee.” 3. We have considered ... assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,58,000 made by the AO by applying the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note the relevant provisions

Mr. Rakesh Govindchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

aforestated ground of appeal” 3. The sole grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, being the difference between the consideration and stamp duty value of the immovable property acquired by the assessee. 4. We have ... income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that 3 Rakesh Govindchand Mehta section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act allows a buffer of 5% of stamp duty price. The assessee further submitted that the balance differential amount is very

Kulsum Mohamed Farooq Mojawala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2428/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: ShriP.D.Chougule, (Addl. CIT)SR DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 246ASection 250

registered deed amountsto Rs.1,00,97,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO has added back entire amount for contravening section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act amount to Rs.1,00,97,000/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) passed ... fact. 6. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The addition was made related to contravening section 56(2)(x)(b) amount to Rs.1,00,97,000/-. Considering the appeal order we find that an entirely different issue related to a different assessee

D.K. Constructions, Bhopal vs. Central Circle - 1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 316/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 D.K.Constructions, Pcit (Central), Dk Cottage, Bhopal 24, Carat E8, बनाम/ Near Gujrati Colony,, Vs. Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. However, neither the assessee has offered the differential amount as income in terms of section 56(2)(x)(b) nor the AO has conducted any enquiry qua this issue while passing assessment-order. Therefore, the Page 2 of 8 D.K. Constructions, Bhopal ... property purchased by assessee was a part of stock-in-trade of assessee and not held as ‘capital asset’. The provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) is not applicable as per the term ‘property’ has been defined in Explanation to section 56(2)(x) read with Explanation

Ashok Keshavlal Dhakan, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National E-Assessment Centre

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

ITA 3265/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Ashok Keshavlal Assessment Unit, Dhakan, National E-Assessment 18, Anuradha, Centre, Vs. Kastur Park, Mumbai, Borvali West, Maharashtra Maharashtra- 400 092 Pan: Aelpd7898E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Rajora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ACIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Chandiwala Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 219/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya & Ms. Vaishali More, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

equally, cannot be said to be attracted. [Para 17]” 10. In light of the above, let us consider the relevant provision of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, which reads as under:- “Income from other sources. ……… ….(b) any immovable property,— (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value

Dinesh Sunderji Shah, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 275/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

does not apply. Further, as Provisions of Section 50C of the Act does not apply, naturally, the provisions of Section 56(2)(X)(b) of the Act also do not apply. 015. Accordingly, solitary ground raised in this appeal is allowed and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to allow

Dinesh Sunderji Shah, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 274/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

Narain Lal Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 744/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "A" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Assessing Officer erred is not appreciating the facts that the amounting to Rs.1,46,23,369/- treated as income under section 56(2)(x)(b) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 as information gathered from system of Income Tax Portal and also submission of the Appellant which has not applied ... purpose of stamp duty and the transaction amount should not be treated as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) and added to the income of AY 2020-21. Since no reply was filed, therefore

Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 146/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 146/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd.,……………………..Appellant T-68, Tegharia Main Road, Post-Hatiara, Behind Lokenath Mandir, Kolkata-700059, West Bengal [Pan:Aadcr6464K] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….…Respondent Circle11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115Section 15Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

appeal, but the solitary substantial issue raised in these grounds is whether an addition of Rs.10,00,000/- with the aid of section 56(2)(x)(b) deserves to be made in the hands of the assessee or not. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... Duty Valuation Authority for charging the stamp should not be construed as a deemed gift in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act or not. In response to the notice, the assessee has submitted that it has purchased the property actually

Kirankumar Amrutlal Patel, Mehsana vs. The CIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 459/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

page number 19, it has been mentioned that no balance amount payable by the Purchasers, therefore, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, the difference between the stamp value of I.T.A No. 459/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 3 Kirankumar Amrutlal Patel

Smt. Pinki Chetan Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3629/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare, DR

Section 2Section 56(2)(x)

which goes to substantiate that the assessee has made the advance payment on 06.02.2015 and therefore the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) is clearly applicable in assessee's case. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed that the addition made considering the date of sale deed as the date ... therefore made addition considering the market value on the date of sale and the agreement vale by applying the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Before proceeding further we will look at the provisions of the said section as extracted below - “(2) In particular, and without

Guhagar Taluka Kunbi Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3242/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

Officer made the addition of differential amount of INR 60,19,506/- in the hands of the Appellant by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. While making the aforesaid addition vide Assessment Order, dated 20/02/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections ... 2 income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Being aggrieved by the above addition of INR 60,19,506/- under 4. Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the Appellant that

Smt Mohini Bharat Kumar Ludhani, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre. Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1868/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

Agreement without appreciating that said Allotment letter is also an Agreement for the purposes of first proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) and thus the learned A.O. erred in making addition by taking stamp value prevailing on the date of registration and hence the addition of Rs 56

Glory Shipmanagement Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC Delhi, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

ITA 3149/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)(x)

acquisition of the immovable property and the fair market value determined by the DVO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer invoked provisions contained in Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act to make an addition of INR 3,86,000/- in the hands of the Appellant. 5. In appeal before ... though more than 5% of purchase consideration was below 10% of the purchase 2 consideration. Therefore, in terms of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) of the Act, no addition should have been made in the hands of the Appellant. However, the CIT(A) rejected the aforesaid contention

Nisha Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 379/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

second aspect of the issue which requires consideration is whether the exception to section 50C(1) by way of third proviso and section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The issue is no more res integra in view of a number of decisions of different benches

Poonam Dhavalkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT/ACIT/JCIT/ITO -NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2220/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration 6.1 Though the authorities below perused and considered the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, however failed to 8 Poonam Dhavalkumar Shah consider First proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act which ... legally enforceable agreement” and ultimately declined to entertain the allotment letter as the agreement fixing amount for consideration under the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Controversy with regard to the treatment of allotment letter as “Agreement fixing the sale price” has been considered by various

Rajeshbhai P . Mangukiya, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 341/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.333 & 341/Srt/2023 (Ays 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nayan Dhanjibhai Mangukiya 14, Rugved Bungalows, L P Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Principal Commissioner Of [Pan Alppm 6978 B] Income-Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Rajesh Parsottambhai Mangukiya 395001 15, Rugved Bungalows, L P Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 [Pan Ahopp 2114 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(x)

facts and merits of the case and in law the learned PCIT- 1,Surat has erred in misinterpreting the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act and proviso thereto. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above ground of appeal ... before 30.08.2010 by way of account payee cheque or transferred of said immovable property. Thus, benefit of 1st and 2nd proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) cannot be provided to the assessee. The Stamp Duty Valuation Authority valued the property at Rs.10.48 crores and deeming provision of Section 56

Nayan Dhanjibhai Mangukiya, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 333/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(x)