← 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)

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

directed to intimate these directions to the AO of Mrs. Cecilia Rozario. Regarding the addition made by the AO, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the assessee‟s objections were disposed off as not maintainable and addition made by the AO was held

Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, Pune vs. ITO, (It) Ward 1, Pune

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 198/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.198/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, V The Income Tax Rh 05, Insignia, Lane 2, S Department, Ito,(It) Pashan Sus Road, N.I.A.S.O., Ward-1, Pune. Murkutenagar(N.V.), Pune – 411045. Maharashtra. Pan: Ajxpb9871A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 147Section 43CSection 56(2)(x)

view of the aforesaid facts & discussion it is concluded that no cogent and forceful facts with regard to non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act have been furnished by assessee in his case. The assessee has put the onus on the builder ... strictly governed by the provisions of section 43CA and the purchaser has nothing to do with this. As the violation of provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act(with effect from 01/04/2017) is prima facie apparent from the copy of index-ii and provisos

Kalptaru Infrabuild, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT-3 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

record. We note that the relevant taxing provisions to tax such receipt in the hands of the assessee (being a partnership firm) viz. Section 56(2)(x) of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017 (AY 2018-19), and the said provision was not applicable ... similar issue Kalptaru Infrabuild vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– held that where deed of conveyance was executed on 31.03.2017, provisions of Section 56(2)(x), which were inserted by Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017, were not applicable to the assessee and accordingly the difference between stamp value

Ayubali Khairbali Qureshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 16(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6851/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriayubali Khairbali Quresh Vs National Faceless Assessment 30-4/A/4, Almarwah Chs, Unit,Delhi / Ito, Ward No.16(2)(1), Millat Nagar, Andheri (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaepq2461P Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirat Ramawat (SR.DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

Income from other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, the assessment was completed after making addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act towards difference in set-forth value and the value adopted

Rama Rajendra Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(6), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rama Rajendrasawant Ito, Ward-23(3)(6), Mumbai 13/11, R.S. Compound, T.J. Road, Vs Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Sewree, Mumbai-400015. Mumbai – 400012. [Pan No. Azlps1612C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

erred in adding 50% the difference of purchase price and stamp duty value of the jointly purchased residential property as income under section 56(2)(x) even though the same has been offered to tax in the return of the first owner Mr. Rajendra Sawant and the assessee has hardly ... difference vis-à-vis ready reckoner rate and agreement value is only 7.00% and within the tolerance range as per prescribed in section 56(2)(x). Thus, no addition is liable to be made against the assessee. Even otherwise the property was purchased from the finances arranged / paid

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Vide order dated, 26/03/2024, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) also made addition of INR.6,30,873/- holding the same to be Long Term 2 Assessment Year ... 2 raised by the Assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. While Ground No.3 is directed against the enhancement of income done by the CIT(A) by directing

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 798/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.796/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.797/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.798/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

have been made in the case of the assessee and the ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 7.3 The provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) stipulates that cash gifts received in excess of Rs.50,000/- are to be treated as income u/s.56

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 797/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.796/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.797/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.798/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

have been made in the case of the assessee and the ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 7.3 The provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) stipulates that cash gifts received in excess of Rs.50,000/- are to be treated as income u/s.56

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 796/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.796/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.797/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.798/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

have been made in the case of the assessee and the ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 7.3 The provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) stipulates that cash gifts received in excess of Rs.50,000/- are to be treated as income u/s.56

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalprabhat Gumanmal Lodha, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to five per cent of the consideration:] ** ** **11 13. Thus, as can be seen, after introduction of section 56(2)(x), applicable for transactions undertaken after 1-4-2017, by Finance Act, 2018, identical exception as provided in third proviso to section ... introduced by Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 1- 4-2019, similar exception as provided in third proviso to section 50C(1) and section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) of the Act was introduced. It will be further relevant to observe, by the Finance Act2020, the permissible limit

Vivira Investment and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4, Thane

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

ITA 5448/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

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

accepting the returned loss of INR 43,99,76,081/-, by making an addition of INR 3,36,27,20,872/- under section 56(2)(x). 2. The learned AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had correctly reported their income, and no additions, disallowances, or adjustments ... were necessary to the returned income. 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, when read with Rules 11U/11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') would be applicable. 4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Netai Bhadra, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2386/KOL/2024[2020]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

2386/KOL/2024) Netai Bhadra required to be disclosed by the assessee under the head “income from other sources” in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act and Since the assessee failed to make compliance of the statutory notices issued under section ... their lands. Therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that since the ownership does not rest with the developer, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) do not apply to the assessee. 8. On being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT. 4 & C.O. No.8/KOL/2025

Ramaswani Parameswaran Nallepilly, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -10(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4241/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ramaswami Parameswaran Ito Ward 10(1)(1) Nallepilly Room No. 25 Building No. F-5, Flat No. B-1 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vashi Sector 9, Navi Mumbai M.K. Road 400 703. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aacpn9909P Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vasudev Ginde & Shri
Section 56(2)(x)

excess of stamp duty value of property over the consideration paid by appellant is treated as “Income from other sources” under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the I.T. Act. The value of two properties purchased by the appellant and his wife ... name is not mentioned in the allotment letter of 2015, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of rates of 2015, under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld. AO opined that in the allotment letter issued in 2015 by the builder mentioned the name of appellant

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), New Delhi vs. Rapid Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3522/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

case the CIT(A) was right in holding that the assessee amendment made by the Finance Act 2020 to the provisions of section 56(2)(x) enhancing the tolerance range to 10% is retrospective in nature and accordingly in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,52,80,000/-“ 3. Briefly

Gaurav Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh / AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

provide for a 5% or 10% tolerance band in AY 2015-16 (such minor relief came only from AY 2019-20 via section 56(2)(x) amendments). At that time, if the difference exceeded ₹50,000, the full difference was taxable. Here the difference is massive

Kanan Sanatan Satyapriy, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2478/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekanan Sanatan Satyapriy Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), A Wing 1302, Metropolish Mumbai Building, Near D.N. Nagar Maharastra-400058 Metro Station, Mumbai-400 058 Pan: Bmxps8907E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, CA (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69B

time; therefore, we condone the delay of 221 days and adjudicate the matter as below. 3. In the assessment addition was made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act related to difference in stamp duty value and purchase value of the property shown by the assessee amount to Rs.1

Kanchan Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Visakhapatnam

ITA 265/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.265/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Kanchan Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Phho Baugh Road Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Ambati Satram Junction Visakhapatnam – 530020 Khadarnagar, Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abepl4375Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

making addition of Rs.65,00,.000/- under section 68 of the Act towards unexplained cash credit and Rs.45,40,750/- towards disallowance under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, by exercising the power conferred under section 263 of the Act, Ld.Pr.CIT came to the conclusion that ... already examined all the details and addition was made to the tune of Rs. Rs.65,00,.000/-. In so far as section 56(2)(x) is concerned, Ld. AO has examined all the details and addition was already made Rs.45,40,750/- and detailed assessment order was passed. Once

Haresh Kumar Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vishakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

difference between market value and the purchase agreements. Hence, the differential amount of Rs. 45,40,750/- comes under the ambit of Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act. 2. It is noticed from the assessment order that the assessing officer considered an amount ... requested for dropping of the proceedings. 5. However, Ld.Pr.CIT came to the conclusion that the Ld. AO has not properly examined section 56(2)(x) of the Act and also the sources of purchase of the immovable property to the tune of Rs. 28,60,000/- and directed

Johar Hasan Zojwalla, Kalyan vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax, Thane-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3121/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 80I

relying upon the provisions of sec. 263 of the I. Tax Act, 1961, directing the Id AO to examine the applicability of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)/section 50C to the transaction of purchase of flat no.3602 at Planet Godrej, Mahalaxmi (E), Mumbai vide agreement dt.03.08.2021, when undisputedly ... whereas the Market Value of the property determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority is Rs.5,91,49,665/-. As per Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, if the stamp duty value exceeds the consideration amount by more than 10% of the consideration, the differential amount is chargeable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1238/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 56(2)(x)

made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the valuation for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) is the Fair Market Value [FMV] which is derived as prescribed method of valuation in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income ... Immovable property and 2 margin of safety as they are not applicable for determining the FMV of unquoted shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case