“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)

Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1403/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1403/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited,….……Appellant 13, Netaji Subhash Road, Gpo, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabak6244L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-36(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 24, 2024 O R D E R

Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority for the purpose of charging the Stamp, deserves to be added as deemed gift under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from ... assessee as to why the difference of Rs.17,97,563/- be not added in the hands of assessee as deemed gift under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the assessee has made a prayer that valuation

Harvinder Singh Marwah, Jogeshwari East vs. CIT(A), Delhi

ITA 3282/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Balbir Singh MarwahFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule

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

grounds of appeal are directed against the solitary addition of INR 1,01,36,346/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act which was confirmed by the CIT(A) and are, therefore, taken up together hereinafter. 4. The relevant facts in brief are that ... INR.1,01,36,346/-. The 2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Assessing Officer, therefore made addition of INR 1,01,36,346/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 24/03/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A/3B) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved

Mr. Bipinchandra Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23 (1) (6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)Section 234BSection 250Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

above grounds of appeal.” 3. The solitary dispute raised by the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual ... fair market value adopted by the stamp duty valuation authority and the consideration paid by the assessee, be not made under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted the valuation report by an independent valuer. As per the valuation report, the market value

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai vs. Romell Housing LLP, Mumbai

ITA 3935/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 253(4)Section 56(2)(x)

each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to any other: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 56(2)(x) of the Act could not have been invoked in the present case, as: a.in this case, the agreements for acquiring rights ... present case, the rights in the immovable property including symbolic possession thereof were received by the Assessee on 31.03.2017 and, hence, section 56(2)(x) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01.04.2017 can have no application to its case. c. assuming without admitting that the said

Rohit Ladiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 339/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT(V.H)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Balkrishna Venkappa Bhandary, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4285/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nihar JambusariaFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, Sr. A.R

Section 143(2)Section 171Section 250Section 43Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

date of letter of allotment. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not applying amended provisions of 1 and 2nd proviso to section 56(2)(x) stating that it is not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that ... provisions of section 56(2)(x) applies only to "immovable property being land or building or both" and not the right to acquire immovable property. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the difference between consideration as per letter of allotment and as per registered

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2574/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit-14(1)(1), M/S Maharashtra State Electricity Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Distribution Co. Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 63 B/C, Govt. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. Charkop, Kandivali, Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aaecm 2933 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: 16/10/2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Goutam Ghosh, Howrah vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 13, Kolkata

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

ITA 1080/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

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

Section 263Section 45Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs, the Assessing Officer is directed to tax income as per provisions of section 69 and section 56(2)(X) the Income Tax Act, 1961 and give necessary effects as per law and pass necessary Order accordingly.” 1.1. Aggrieved with this action

Rajendra Motiram Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1360/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Rajendrakumar Motiram Patel The Ito, D-9, Rangsagar Tenements Vs Ward-3(2)(1) B/H. Krishnanagar Ahmedabad. Saijpur Bogha Ahmedabad 32 346 Pan : Cdppp 0257 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Rajendrakumar Motiram

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee being a company and provision which probably might cover such situation is under section 56(2)(x) brought in the statute w.e.f. A.Y.2017-18 at the most. 27. In so far as the contention that the Section 2(19AA) has been violated

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

Shailesh Sundar Bhoir, Dist Thane, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

ITA 1782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Learned Assessing officer has not considered the provisions of section 2(14) and explanation (d) to section 56(2) clause (vii) while applying section 56(2)(x) while passing the Assessment Order. 2. The transaction under consideration is purchase of Agricultural Land by the Appellant and his real brother

Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 489/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi The Ito बनाम/ 903, Anurag Flats Ward-2, International Taxation V/S. Nr.Vidhyanagar School Ahmedabad Usmanpura Ahmedabad – 380 014 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ceepp 9266 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69A

account. The DRP took the alternate view that the amount deposited in the NRE account should be treated as a gift under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The DRP suggested that since the amount was withdrawn by Mr. Shreekanth Shenoi, an employee of Water Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi ... report, the DRP ignored these findings and directed to the AO to proceed with the alternate treatment as income to be taxed under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act adding Rs.25

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2165/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT

Section 19Section 41(1)

covered under the provisions of Clause(v) of Section 47 of the Act. Consequently, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of Section 56(2)(X) (c) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer all the three companies are different entities. The Assessing Officer further noted that the Directors ... merger consideration. Thus, it is evident that the assessee company has received assets worth Rs.149.29 crores without consideration. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) (c) of the Act are applicable. 07. Thus, according to him, the issue of diminution in value of investment can be separately dealt with

Shri Husain Asgarali Bhanpurawala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2371/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Husain Asgarali Income Tax Officer- Bhanpurawala Nfac 36/40, Circle 6(1)(2), Dadoji Kondeo Marg, Room No. 506, Gulzar Apt., Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Byculla (E.), Churchgate, Mumbai- 400008. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Ahzpb3362L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Unavekar, SR. D.R

Section 148Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.34,01,000/- (57,51,000 – 23,50,000) should not be treated as income from other sources as per the provision of section 56 (2)(x) of the Act. According to the Ld. AO, despite given several opportunities to explain the difference, the appellant could not submit any evidence

Alpesh Premji Dedhia, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. Ward - 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3999/MUM/2024[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H(SMC)’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Reba Roy, Coochbehar vs. A.O. Ward 2(1), Coochbehar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 721/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

aforesaid transaction was by the Class-I relative of the assessee i.e. mother of the assessee to the assessee, therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act are not attracted in this case, hence, the impugned addition is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is ordered

Sangeeta Ravindra Chanadan, Mumbai vs. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 457/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 54,08,000/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] being 50% of the stamp duty valuation in respect ... name of the Appellant is akin to the transfer of ownership rights in the said immoveable property and (ii) the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act includes the transfer of tenancy rights in the said immoveable property and therefore, it is applicable in the case

Vipinchandra M. Chokhawali, Navapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1551/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Along With Stay Application 06/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1551/Pun/2024) Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Old Station Road, Dal Mill, Dhule Nandurbar, Navapur-425418 Maharashtra Pan : Adnpc8588M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit Khatiwala and Shri Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

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

total income of Rs.2,47,55,960/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.1,69,31,706/- invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is as under : During the previous year relevant ... Rs.4,18,62,535/- which comes to Rs.1,69,31,706/-, should be treated as ‘Income from Other Sources’ interms of provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, he brought to tax the said sum S.A.No.06/PUN/2024 rejecting the contention of the appellant that the stamp

Vijay Kumar Bhan, Thane vs. ITO-Cir-42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Kumar Bhan Ito Circle 42(3)(1) Flat No. 602, Surbharlokpuram, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra E, Hiranandani Meadows, Thane (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Thane – 400 610

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh R ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar

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

late possession of the flat received by the assessee from the builder would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’ as per section 56(2)(x) of the I. T. Act as being a ‘revenue receipt’. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned ... upheld the said addition treating the same to be as a ‘revenue receipt’ under the head ‘income from other sources’ as per section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied on the order