“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)

Swati Sanjay Khadye, Tardeo Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Piramal Chamber Lalbaug

ITA 2749/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 43CSection 56(2)(x)

appeal raised by the Assessee: “1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.7,06,225 under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 2. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the established legal position that the variation between Stamp Value ... lead to the inference that the entire difference should be added back as Income from other sources by inviting the regours of see section 56(2)(x). 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in fact and in law in not appreciating that the difference between the Stamp Value

Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circel-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 948/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 56(2)(x)

consideration as per registered sale deed and stamp duty value of the property, which is in excess of the prescribed limit as per section 56(2)(x) of the Act. In fact, the assessee is admitting the stamp duty value of the property as fixed by the stamp duty authorities

Tamal Kundu, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 37, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1797/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1797/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT

Section 2(47)(vi)Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO ought to have applied the provision of section 56(2)(x) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of purchase of immovable property by the appellant ... hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without considering the stamp duty value as on date of agreement as per first proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act on the alleged ground that the agreement to sell is not registered without appreciating the fact that there is no mandate

Amit Shrivastav, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit - National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), The Appellant Pleaded That The Differential Was Less Than 10% But More Than 5% (Being The Tolerance Available For The Assessment Year In Question) & Hence For The Year Under Consideration The Safe Harbour Limit Of 5% Only Would Apply & Since The Impugned Amount Was More Than That Limit, He Sustained The Addition.

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

second aspect of the issue which requires consideration is whether the exception to section 50C(1) by way of third proviso and section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The issue is no more res integra in view of a number of decisions of different benches

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Ashiana Housing Limited, Kolkata

In the result, with these remarks, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1391/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 43C

case of Karb Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we unhesitatingly hold that the amendment of increasing the tolerance band from 5% to 10% under section 56(2)(x) brought in by Finance Act, 2020 had to be read retrospectively being clarificatory/curative in nature and, therefore, since the difference between the valuation

Deepak Kumar Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4879/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (Sr. DR)

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

learned A.O. [FAO] erred in making an addition of Rs. 57,20,450/- to the other income of the appellant under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, without appreciating the facts and explanations provided by the appellant. (b) In the facts and circumstances of the case

Gangaram Vallabhji Soni, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2877/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

ITO, Lower Parel vs. Sohit Shravankumar Sadh, Lower Parel

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

ITA 3180/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3Rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & Amp, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

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

Revenue relied on the order of the ld. A.O. and contended that the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 8. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue ... invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b) in his first draft assessment order dated 15.02.2021 and, subsequently invoked section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act in the second draft assessment order dated 05.03.2021, as the former section was not in operation w.e.f. 01.04.2017, for the reason that the assessee

Manjula Himmatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-20(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2261/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jeetender C. LalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Navin Ramesh Manshani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3570/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of Rs.660300/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and regard being had to facts of the case addition of Rs.660300/- should ... adopted by Stamp duty Authority is only 7.05% of agreement value, which is within the safe harbour limit of 10% as provided in section 56(2)(x) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 865/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2020-21 Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(3)(1) 14, Darshak, Swastik Society Vs Ahmedabad. Punjab Hall Lane Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Abypp 8048 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ar : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 274Section 56(2)(x)

stamp duty value. The difference between the two being added to the income of the assessee in terms of the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The specific facts relating to the property purchased by the assessee being that it pertained to plots of land at Chandlodiya ... stamp duty value was Rs.63,25,000/-. The difference of Rs.61,20,000/- was treated as assessee’s income in terms of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 4. We have heard both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the AO and the ld.CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. R K M Powergen Private Limited, T Nagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 800/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CA

Section 56(1)

individuals and HUF. It was by Finance Act 2017 that with effect from Assessment Year 2018-19 that this provision was substituted by Section 56(2)(x) that extended these deeming provisions to companies also. Thus, there is no case u/s 56 (2)(ii)/ (x) for the impugned

Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4023/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 56(2)(x)Section 928(2)

TPO/Ld. AO under the directions of the Ld. DRP erred in holding that purchase of surfactants business was taxable under section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act. 44 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. DRP erred in not following ... receiving any ‘option premium’ does not arise. Related the purchase of ‘business undertaking’ was treated as purchase of property and by pursuing section 56(2)(x) of the Act the difference of purchase value amount to Rs. 174,01,59,374/- and the valuation under DCF method amount

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1544/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

with the issue being the purchase of immovable property where the purchase value was lower than the stamp duty value as per Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased two immovable properties in Dariyapur, Ahmedabad: • Property 1: Purchased for Rs.45 ... difference of Rs.43,10,000/- between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value was treated as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act by AO, and an addition of Rs.43,10,000/- was made ITA Nos.1543 & 1544/Ahd/2024 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana vs. ITO Asst. Year

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1543/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

Vaidyanathan Kalaivani, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1542/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Niay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 56(2)

aTaHe artteita aftr, v, zaraio,aag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘a’ BENCH, CHENNAI aria stay par fay, =nfier

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax vs. Commercial Development Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

ITA 3791/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: 30/09/2024

Section 56(2)(x)

agreement at CTS No. 565 & 566, Newatia Road Malad (W) as on sale agreement date 15.03.1978 date 15.03.1978 for application of provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the for application of provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, when registration/conveyance of sale deed has been done ... application 15.03.1978 determined by the district valuation officer, for application 15.03.1978 determined by the district valuation officer, for application of provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, when the facts of payment of provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, when the facts of payment

Commercial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

ITA 3755/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: 30/09/2024

Section 56(2)(x)

Anvis Digital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1092/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Officer erred in not referring the valuation of the subject property to the DVO which is not in compliance with proviso 3 to section 56(2)(x). Assessee submitted that it had all along disputed the stamp duty valuation, fact of which is already noted in the impugned assessment order ... valuation before making the impugned addition. To delve on this issue, we take note of the relevant provisions contained in the section 56(2)(x), reproduced as under: 5 Anvis Digital Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2018-19 “(x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons

Aravind Reddy Devagiri, Guntur vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(2), Guntur

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

ITA 267/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aravind Reddy Devagiri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 2(2) 14-19-35, 1St Lane Vijayapuri Guntur Andhra Pradesh Jkc College Road, Guntur 522006 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Auepd7820R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 68Section 69A

investment in two firms of Rs.1,94,99,178/-. iv. Addition on account of investment of Rs. 1,40,000/-. v. Addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act of Rs.9,65,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, assessee filed an appeal before ... raised by the assessee is allowed. 18. Ground No. 7 is with respect to the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. On this ground Ld.AR submitted that the amount of Rs.9,65,000/- has been received by the assessee as gift from