“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

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

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

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)

Clayking Minerals LLP, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Mehsana

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

ITA 82/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)

through CASS to examine whether the purchase value of a property was less than the value determined by the stamp valuation authority under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee purchased a property during the relevant year ... agricultural land at the time of purchase, it did not qualify as a “capital asset” as per section 2(14), and therefore, section 56(2)(x) was not applicable. The assessee that the nature of land at the time of purchase and its use as agricultural land excluded it from

Sucheta Oumeya Kale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 395/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainsucheta Oumeya Kale Vs. Ito, Ward – 42(3)(4) 25-B, Goodwill Bldg, Kautilya Bhavan, Manmala Tank Road, Mahim Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 016. Mumbai – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aappk0489A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sucheta Oumeya Kale

Rakeshkumar Shitalprasad Shukla, Goregaon East vs. Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1855/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

with effect from 01.04.2017 and was not applicable because this flat was brought prior to that. Moreover, as per the first proviso to section 56(2)(x), it is stated that when the date of agreement fixing the amount for transfer of immovable property and the date of registration ... 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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Thiyagarajan Ravindran, Chennai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2054/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2054/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Thiyagarajan Ravindran, No.53/54, 2Nd Lane, Central Circle 1(2), Vs. Chennai Madhavaram High Road (North), Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aaepr-1108-E] (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

same. Since the assessee has neither received any money nor paid any amount and transfer is among related parties as per proviso to section 56(2)(x), there is no applicability of provisions of Section 56(2)(x), i.e., in other words, the assessee officer cannot claim the market value

Oswald Raphael Misquitta, Vasai Road vs. ITO Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 742/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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)

proposing to 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 ... daughter of the 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

Smt. Kajari Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-29(1), Kolktat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 50(2)(X)Section 56Section 56(2)(X)

appeal for adjudication. 03. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against the applicability of the provisions of Section 56(2)(X) of the Act by the Id. AO which was upheld by the Id. CIT (A). 04. The case of the assessee was selected ... which was 1,54,23,248/- but the purchase price was only ₹50 lacs. Accordingly, the Id. AO invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(X) of the Act and made an addition of ₹1,04,23,248/- to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed

Naina Manish Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnaina Manish Desai, Flat No. 6, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3Rd Floor, Triveni Building, बनाम – 19(2)(4), Piramal Walkeshwar Triveni Chs E Chambers, 5Th Floor, Block, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 006, Maharashtra 400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabps9026P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) but relied on provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in adopting the DVO valuation

Sunil Amarlal Bajaj, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 6297/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Girish Agrawal

Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

reply of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer. The assessing officer by referring the provision ITA No. 6297/Mum/2024 Sunil Amarlal Bajaj of section 56(2)(x) held that there is the difference between the value shown by the assessee and the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority. The second ... proviso of section 56(2)(x) is applicable where part consideration is paid by way of cheque or demand draft is paid. No consideration or part thereof is paid by assessee at the time of agreement. The assessing officer accordingly brought difference of 1/3rd vis-a-vis the value declared

Mansukhlal Ganeshmal Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6080/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mansukhlal Ganeshmal Sanghvi Ito, Circle 20(1) 1502, Chaitya Towers, Shivdas Piramal Chambers Champsi Marg, Mazgaon Vs. Lalbaug S.O. Mumbai-400 010. Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Aagps7362F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Jigar Mehta

Section 56(2)(x)

upheld the addition made by Ld. AO relating to difference in stamp duty value and purchase consideration as ‘income from other sources’ under section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act without appreciating the facts of the case. It was also stated in the grounds of appeal that the matter

Dharampal Saghera, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Chandigarh

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

ITA 756/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar Hon’Ble & Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 54Section 54ESection 56(2)

close relative transfers an amount to another without consideration, such a transfer assumes the character of a gift. Consequently, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not be attracted in such circumstances. Therefore, even from this alternate perspective, we consider that the amount

Bhadreshlabhshankar Joshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6528/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the aforesaid decision, are reproduced as follows:- "9. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, where any person receives any immovable property from any person or persons on or after 01.04.2017 either without consideration or for consideration ... more than the amount mentioned in the section. In the present case, the assessee has challenged the very applicability of the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act on the basis that the property was received prior to 01.04.2017. In this regard, much emphasis has been placed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), Delhi, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Dlehi vs. Rajni Gupta, Anand Vihar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Rajni Gupta B-130, 2Nd Floor, Anand Ward- 58(3) Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110092 Pan No.Aatpg5940Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Ravi Pratap Mal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2025 Order

Section 250Section 5Section 50Section 50CSection 541Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(x)

without going into the merits of the case. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has only referred to the date/AY in which section 56(2)(x)(b) was brought on the statute but failed to discuss the merits of the case. The case is clearly covered u/s 50C of the I.T.Act ... registered deed. 4 ITO vs. Rajni Gupta - A.Y. 2016-17 5. The Ld.CIT(A) found that the AO invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act while making addition of the difference between the stamp duty value of the property and actual consideration received by the assessee

Arvindkumar Jagjivandas Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1966/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

found to be greater than actual consideration ITA No. 1966/Ahd/2024 [Arvindkumar Jagjivandas Thakkar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – paid, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act was invoked for making addition of the difference, to the extent of the assessee’s holdings in the said land ... purchase consideration Rs. 20100000/- which is nearer to 10% of our consideration of purchase Rs. 20100000/- hence our honest belief that deeming provision section 56(2) (x) (b) cannot be applied. In the recent ITAT judgement in the case of Dilipbhaimanilal Prajapati (2nd coparcener of same and 47.50% share

Bio- Care Technologies, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 4 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6946/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 142Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

showing sale consideration of Rs.19,50,000/-. The stamp authority valued the property was Rs.44,61,622/-. Thus, provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act is attracted as the stamp duty value exceeded the purchase consideration. The assessee filed its reply as recorded by Assessing Officer in Para

Ms Rana Ayyub Shaikh, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (Central Circle) 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2283/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Ms. Ritu Punjabi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R

Section 175Section 56(2)(x)

assessee is accordingly dismissed. 13. On merits of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act do not apply on the facts of the case. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... DCIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 533 (Mumbai-Trib.) and Chandrakant H. Shah vs. ITO [2009] 124 ITD 177 (Mumbai). 14. Provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act read as under:- Income from other sources. 15 56. (1) ………………… …………………………….. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions

Ms Rana Ayyub Shaikh, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (Central Circle) 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2282/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Ms. Ritu Punjabi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R

Section 175Section 56(2)(x)

Ms Rana Ayyub Shaikh, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (Central Circle) 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2281/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Ms. Ritu Punjabi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R

Section 175Section 56(2)(x)

B.R. Construction, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2534/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

Agreement with Thika Tenants/Principals as the Developer/Attorney, the A.O. wrongly considered the same as an 'Investment in Immovable Property' and thus wrongly invoked Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) The addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is unwarranted as there was no purchase of immovable property. The agreement ... failure to address the merits of the case and lack of a speaking order. 2. Delete the Addition Made Under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B): Remove the unjustified addition to the appellant's income, as the development agreement with Thika Tenants does not constitute a transfer of immovable property

ACIT Circle-24(1), Piramal Chamber vs. Raiees Yasin Lashkaria, Andheri West

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5457/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4450/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5457/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER