“section 56(2)(x)”

Pinstripe Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year 2018-19

made part of the payment by banking mode through RTGS on 08.02.2011 of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Therefore, as per First Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act date of agreement will be taken to 18.03.2011 and not 26.04.2016. The ld. Counsel has also referred the copies ... assessing officer has added difference of Rs. 93,46,548/- in the total income of the assessee after applying the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee has submitted the copies of allotment letter of flat no. 1601 & 1701 dated 18.03.2011 wherein it is categorically stated

Ratan Bhagirath Kanji, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018

Fiero Fernandes, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.23/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Fiero Fernandes Vs. Ito, Ward-42(2)(2), 1202 Lourdes Heritage, Mumbai Opposite Our Lady Of Lourdes Church, Orlem Malad West Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaspf 3097 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 05/11/2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

purchase consideration is less than 10% of the purchase consideration and as upheld by various judicial for a, the amendment to section 56(2)(x) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2019 prescribing a price band of 10% being curative and beneficial in nature, would apply retrospectively to section 56(2

Shri. Sanjav Keshav Satpute, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2018-19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY

Sumeet Deepak Murpan, Mumba vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Mr. Akhlaqueahmed Makhdumali Gharade, Mumbai vs. I T O, Ward-17 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Akhlaqueahmed Income Tax Officer, Makhdumali Gharade, Ward-17(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, R/N. 48 74, Vs. Mumbai Aishabai Chamber, Sofia Zubair Road, Nagapada, Mumbai Pan : Ajgpg2886B (Appellant) (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Jayantilal Umashankar Chavji, Mumbai vs. National E Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

property was done at the lower cost. He accordingly made addition of the differential amount in the hands of the assessee under section 56 (2) (x) of the Act. I.T.A. No.4433/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT ... Ground No. 1, claim has been made that the excess of stamp duty valuation over sale consideration was only 1.5% whereas provisions of section 56(2)(x) allowed 5% of sale consideration to be ignored. However, the contention is not correct because for the AY under consideration (2018-19), only

Nitin Janardan Pachpute, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 23(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Buildcube Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thane

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 Buildcube Constructions Pvt. Income Taxofficer, Ltd., Ward-1(1), Office No. G-01, Vs. B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ground Floor,Mirani Nagar, Ahsar It Park Road No.16Z, Kopri Colony Road, Wagle Ind. Estate, Near Union Bank Of India, Thane, Thane (E), Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan : Aaccb3253H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi For Revenue : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2025

Rs.11.16 crores, being the difference between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value. Presumably, the AO has applied the spirit of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which came into force w.e.f. 01-04-2017 only. He submitted that the AO could not have made any other addition

Nivruti Mahadev Ghadge, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () Assessment Year: 2018-19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2018-19

Hbs View Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to five per cent of the consideration:] ** ** **" 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