← All Phrases

“section 56(2)(x)”

Capital GainsSection 56(2)(x)Section 56(2)(x)498 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 56(2)(x) is ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108), cited in 364 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 56(2)(x)

ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
374 ITR 108 · 2015 · High Court
364
citing judgments

When computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act using Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, only investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year are to be considered for the calculation.

TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT
357 ITR 146 · 2013 · High Court
272
citing judgments

If the Assessing Officer has not conducted any investigation and thus has not discharged their burden of proof, any addition made by the AO is unsustainable and must be deleted.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
368 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
172
citing judgments

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT
261 ITR 501 · 2003 · High Court
147
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not been granted a deduction for the relevant liability in earlier years.

CIT v. Naresh Khattar (HUF)
261 ITR 664 · 2003 · High Court
75
citing judgments

An adverse inference cannot be drawn against an assessee solely based on uncorroborated loose papers found during a search or on a statement made during the search that is later retracted, unless the Assessing Officer conducts independent enquiry to establish the facts.

CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC)
352 ITR 629 · 2013 · High Court
71
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 69B for undisclosed investment, the Revenue must first prove that an understatement of investment has occurred and that the assessee made the undisclosed investment. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and additions cannot be based merely on presumptions or assumptions without corroborative material.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

Judgments citing section 56(2)(x)

Darshini Amit Sharma, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1345/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1345/Srt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Darshini Amit Sharma बनाम / Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Daman, Daman 207, Spectra Housing Society, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Blhps5706E (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलार्थी ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agrawal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/03/2026 19/03/2026 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)") Dated 30.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act") & Relates To

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.90,77,000/-. The difference of Rs.7,10,000/- was added to the income of the assessee in terms of the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. The solitary contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before me was that the difference between actual consideration ... stamp duty value was less than 10% of the consideration received and in terms of the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, no addition needed to be made to the income of the assessee. He contended that this argument was raised before the AO who rejected

Asgarali Mazharali Manihar, Ankleshwar vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

ITA 1323/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

assessee’s 1/7th share, which was chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’ as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. Assessee made a reply that the sale deed was cancelled ... cancellation deed registered as document no.14011 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022. Therefore, the question of invoking Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act does not arise. This explanation was not accepted by the AO whereby made addition of Rs.39,31,428/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment

Mr. Shridhar Gangaram Anumandala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 8391/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 50Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

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 ... tolerance limit of 10% as provided under section 56 of the Act, and therefore the addition of Rs. 1,18,80,887/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, representing the difference between the agreement value and the value adopted by the registration authority, was not warranted

Sujata Prakash Jawale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7572/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

case of Clayking Minerals LLP vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] reported in 174 taxmann.com 1111, wherein the tribunal while deciding on Section 56(2)(x) which has replaced Section 56(2)(vii)(b) since October 2017, has observed that:- “On a plain reading, it is seen that section 56(2 ... immovable property” as stated in section 6 I.T.A. No. 7572/Mum/2025 56(2)(x). The term “immovable property” has not been defined in section 56(2)(x) or in any other section in the Income Tax Act. This renders the word to be interpreted in general parlance. In general understanding

Dinkar Bhanudas Narkhede, Dharangaon vs. ITO Ward-2, Khamgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 624/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.624/Nag/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dinkar Bhanudas Narkhede, Vs. Income Tax Officer, National Highway No.6, Ward-2, Khamgaon At Kund Bk, Post Dharangaon, Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana Maharashtra – 443 101 Pan : Afwpn6070J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.1,30,00,000. For the difference amount of Rs.33,98,889/-, ld. Assessing Officer show caused the assessee for the invocation of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee requested for referring the matter to the Valuation Officer. However, due to the assessment getting time barred ... less than the purchase consideration of Rs.96,01,111/- paid by the assessee and therefore there remains no justification for invoking section 56(2)(x) of the Act. I therefore delete the addition of Rs.4,90,889/- made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Since I have already deleted the addition

Harjinder Singh, Derabassi vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 795/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJ PAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak Malhotra, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 56(2)(x)

from the brother of the Assessee, hence the money received as a gift from relative was not taxable as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Assessment Order issued under section 143(3) is liable to be quashed

Vikas Bedprakash Pandey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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:

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.74,519/- u/s 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 ... duty 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

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Varun Jaisingh Asher, Mumbai

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

ITA 8251/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Shengde, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

right. The Ld. AO 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 ... assessee in the redeveloped building was not against any genuine consideration. Thus, he treated the receipt of the flat as gratuitous and invoked section 56(2)(x), taxing the stamp duty value of Rs.11.68 crore as income from other sources. From review of documentary evidence it is seen that Tenancy

Rinki Singh, Jamshedpur Telco vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur

ITA 56/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rinki Singh, I.T.O., Flat No. 5703, Prakirti Shanti Valley Ward 2(1), Vs. Society, Hurlung, Telco, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831004 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Issps 0698 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 249Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

30/03/2023 on a total income of ₹ 23,56,250/- in which addition of Rinki Singh Vs ITO ₹ 21,11,500/- was added under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act on the ground that the property being Flat No. B/2, 2nd Floor, Sai Heritage, Block No. 2, Ghorabandha Telco, Jamshedpur

Smita Suresh Janwalkar, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 368/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmita Suresh Janwalkar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Bldg No 168 Panchaganga It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Chs, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar E, Building, Thane, Mumbai-400075. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No: Bbqpj2341M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

liable to be quashed. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 8,51,880 made under section 56(2)(x) without appreciating that the entire consideration for the property was paid in the year 2011, and therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(x) were wrongly ... Officer dated 01.06.2023 determined the fair market value of the property at 10,12,000, which clearly demonstrates that the addition made under section 56(2)(x) is arbitrary and unsustainable. 10. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and appreciate the independent registered valuer's report submitted

Juee Sudhir Gore, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5868/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 56(2)(x)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) read with Section 144B of the Act thereby making an addition of Rs.1,83,909/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The appeal relates to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her Return ... property at the relevant date was Rs.30,97,000/- and, therefore, proposed the addition of the difference of Rs.23,97,000/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Statutory notice was issued on 11.06.2021, which was treated as being issued under Section 148A(b) of the amended provisions

Vikas Satish Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle 13(3)(2), Aaykar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7146/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

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

Neelesh Shyamsunder Sable, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 51(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. (Virtually
Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(x)

excluded and c excluded and cannot be taxed under Section 56 of the Act. Section 56 of the Act. The Explanation (b) to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, specifically provides Explanation (b) to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, specifically provides Explanation (b) to Section 56(2 ... stock in trade" and "rural tax Act, 1961, on "stock in trade" and "rural agriculture land", by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the agriculture land", by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the agriculture land", by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(x

Vaibhav Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 792/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.792/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vaibhav Babubhai Patel The Dcit बनाम/ 1, Jamnadas House Circle-4(1)91) V/S. Ambli-Bopal Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 Daskroi Ahmedabad – 380 061 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afdpp 8672 F (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ए“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, Salem vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 1861/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं. Ita No. 1861/Chny/2025 & Sa 69/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, V. Dcit, Central Circle, 6/21, Devanayagam Pillai, Salem-636007 St. Shevapet, Salem-636002 [Pan: Apopm 3624 H] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Jaydip Desai, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69A

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनुकुमारिग"र, "ाियक सद

Bharatkumar Haridas Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8409/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. And
Section 56(2)(x)

confirming the addition of Rs. 5,83,371/- The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,83,371/ under section 56(2)(x) without properly appreciating the facts a under section 56(2)(x) without properly appreciating the facts a under section 56(2)(x) without ... date of booking/allotment, contrary of registration instead of the date of booking/allotment, contrary to the mandatory First and Second Provisos to section 56(2)(x), to the mandatory First and Second Provisos to section 56(2)(x), to the mandatory First and Second Provisos to section 56(2)(x), despite

Bihari Parmanand Kandhari, Mumbai vs. Aci, Circle -23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7925/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Mr. Akshay Jain
Section 56(2)

addition of The central issue in this appeal pertains to an addition of ₹3,92,87,988/- made under made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). During the assessment proceedings under Act, 1961 ("the Act"). During the assessment proceedings under ... equity and the man 46A stands in contrast to the spirit of equity and the man natural justice. 3.2 The proviso to Section 56(2)(x) is a beneficial provision The proviso to Section 56(2)(x) is a beneficial provision The proviso to Section 56(2)(x

Ashok Lalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8315/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 56(2)(x)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,01,745/- under section 56(2)(x) made by the Ld. AO being the difference between the stamp duty value of Rs.2,37,75,745/- and the agreement value of Rs.1 ... observed that there was a difference of ₹62,01,745/- between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration. Invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the Assessing Officer treated the differential amount as income from other sources and made the 2 Ashok Lalchand Jain addition

Sudhanshu Infrastructures Private Limited, Bhandup(W) vs. Circle 15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 7654/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Surji Chheda (Virtually present), ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

Being the Market Value of properties are higher than the sale consideration shown by the assessee, the ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and have made the addition of the excess of Market Value over the actual sale consideration. The details of properties ... 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