← 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)

Imran Mohamed Ali Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2056/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2018-19) Imran Mohamed Ali Kapadia, 1702/1703 Sumer Park, Bldg. No.1, Seth Motishah Cross Lane, Byculla, Mumbai 400 008 Pan: Aupk-9074-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Ward 20(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, G.B.Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 06.04.2023, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri. Pratik Mehta Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Solitary Issue In Present Appeal Is Against The Addition Of ₹30,47,000/- U/S 56(2)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Pratik MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt
Section 56(2)(x)

considered for the purpose of 3 determination of Fair Market Value (FMA) of immovable property. He referred to the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 2.2. Without prejudice to his primary submission, the Ld. AR submits that in the case of assessee’s brother Shri. Haji

Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal, Mumbai vs. National E Assessmet Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 202/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebenudhar Gokulanand Vs. National E Assessment Biswal, Centre, H 302, Room.No 401,2 Nd Shanti Complex, Floor, E Ramp, Saki Vihar Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Powai, Stadium, Mumbai – 400072, New Delhi-110003. Pan/Gir No. : Adopb9106B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Tanmay Phadke.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per The Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)]Despite Concluding That The Agreement For Sale Was Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. Entered Into On 13.07.2009 (I.E. Prior To 01.04.2017), Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Which Was Inserted Vide Finance Act, 2017 & Made Expressly Applicable From 01.04.2017 Are Not Applicable To The Facts Under Consideration. The Addition Of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% Of Rs. 19,76,686/-) As Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Is Bad In Law & May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr.Tanmay Phadke.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Naina K Kumar.DR
Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(x)

exceeding the specified amount on or after 01.04.2017 from any person or persons during the previous year. Further, the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property

Sulochana Saijan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 557/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

confirming the addition of Rs. 28,92,650/- u/s 56(2)(x) while doing so, the provisions of the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) have been ignored. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying ... assessment proceedings which reflects that the payment was made before the agreement date. Thus, satisfying both the conditions under the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The provision does 2 | P a g e not prescribe quantum of payment to be made.” 3. Briefly stated facts