← 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)

Subrata Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1462/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1462/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subrata Das………………..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant P-347, Cit Road, Scheme Vim Kankurgachi, Kolkata – 700054. [Pan: Acxpd9375L] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 24Th June, 2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In-Liminie Without Dealing With The Merits Of The Case & By Not Passing Speaking Order On The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant Assessee Against The Impugned Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (The Assessing Officer) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A. No.1462/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subrata Das

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

said Company. 3. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing and adding back a sum of Rs. 70,40,000 /- under section 56(2)(x) on the grounds without appreciating that the provisions of 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will not apply ... mother of the assessee and she is falling in the definition of relative as defined under the Act, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were not applicable to the said gift deed. 4.2 The ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the impugned additions made

Abbs Gulam Rasool Maknojia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1414/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

offered the stamp duty valuation to tax, in his return of income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ as per Section 56(2)(x) of the Act and therefore the return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly various statutory notices were issued ... initially purchased by agreement and booking letter dated 25.6.2012. The ld. AO further, observed that as per the first and second proviso of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the assessee’s share of the difference of Rs. 1,33,22,000/- {1,96,22,000/- the stamp duty

Mitra Tushar Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3156/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhi.T.A No.3156/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Mitra Tushar Bhanushali Vs Income Tax Officer, Warde-27(2)(1), Mumbai Income Tax Office, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, A/103, Ashapura Estate, Agra Road, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai- New Maneklal Estate, Ghatkopar 400 703 West, Mumbai-400 086 Pan : Albpb9598A

Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(x)

between the transaction value and the stamp duty value should be treated as income of the assessee from ‘Other sources’ in terms of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee intimated that said property, i.e. Flat No.801, A-Wing, Omkar Ananta, Shrikrishna Nagar, General Arun Kumar Vaidya Marg ... Therefore, he rejected the contention of the assessee and treated the amount of Rs.50,50,137/- as “Income from other sources” under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee filed further appeal to Ld.CIT(A). However, could not comply with the various notices issued by the Ld.CIT

Tushar Ramnath Shetty, Andheri East vs. The Imcome Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3074/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

above grounds of appeal. The sole grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, being the difference between the consideration and stamp duty value of the immovable property acquired by the assessee.” 3. We have considered ... section 143(3) read with section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act made an addition of Rs. 5,58,000 under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the addition

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 967/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 967/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,...……Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Emami Realty Limited,……………………..……Respondent 13Th Floor, Acropolis 1858/1, Rajdanga Main Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal [Pan: Aalcs5120P] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 09, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

ITA No. 967/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2021-2022) Emami Realty Limited THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal

Mr. Rakesh Govindchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

action of the Officer at the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making an addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act of Rs 2,96,500, being the difference between the apparent consideration 2 Rakesh Govindchand Mehta ... difference of Rs 2,96,500 is less than 10% of the amount of apparent consideration and hence, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) are not applicable; as such, the impugned addition of Rs 2,96,500 is not warranted and needs to be deleted. The appellant craves leave

Arvind Kumar Agrawal, Gurgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Incoem Tax Department

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 139/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

interest of the revenue: At the outset it is submitted that the impugned transaction is duly covered by the first proviso of section 56(2)(x) and as such it is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and further the ld. AO accepted the explanation of the assessee ... period, bank statements etc. were taken on record for coming to the conclusion that there was no income taxable under the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Reference may be made to detailed response of the assessee on the same issue which is placed

Kulsum Mohamed Farooq Mojawala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2428/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: ShriP.D.Chougule, (Addl. CIT)SR DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 246ASection 250

mentioned in the registered deed amountsto Rs.1,00,97,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO has added back entire amount for contravening section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act amount to Rs.1,00,97,000/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.CIT ... fact. 6. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The addition was made related to contravening section 56(2)(x)(b) amount to Rs.1,00,97,000/-. Considering the appeal order we find that an entirely different issue related to a different assessee

D.K. Constructions, Bhopal vs. Central Circle - 1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 316/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 D.K.Constructions, Pcit (Central), Dk Cottage, Bhopal 24, Carat E8, बनाम/ Near Gujrati Colony,, Vs. Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

taxability u/s 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. However, neither the assessee has offered the differential amount as income in terms of section 56(2)(x)(b) nor the AO has conducted any enquiry qua this issue while passing assessment-order. Therefore, the Page 2 of 8 D.K. Constructions ... impugned property purchased by assessee was a part of stock-in-trade of assessee and not held as ‘capital asset’. The provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) is not applicable as per the term ‘property’ has been defined in Explanation to section 56(2)(x) read with Explanation

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Ashok Narendra Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3373/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2018-19 Acit, Circle – 19(1) Ashok Narendra Mehta, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 132, 13Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Siddhesh Darshan, Mumbai. 10Th Khetwadi Main Road, Khetwadi, Mumbai Pan : Aivpm9318A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

lakhs only [Rs. 30 lakhs to the previous tenant and Rs. 20 lakhs to the builder]. Hence, he took the view that section 56(2)(x) of the Act, will be applicable to this transaction. Accordingly, he assessed the difference amount of Rs.1,97,93,300/- as income ... perused the record. The question is about the applicability of provisions of sec.56(2)(x) to transfer/surrender of tenancy right. The provisions of Section 56(2)(x) as applicable to AY 2018-19 read as under:- “56(2)(x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person

Sanjiv Atmaram Sawant, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional AO-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-16(3), Aayakar Bhavan., Mumbai

ITA 4009/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

only and not 22.12.2014. Secondly, the difference is of Rs.1,01,29,333/3 which is more than 5% of the sales consideration, therefore section 56(2)(x) of the Act is attracted. Thirdly, even the first proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act should be applied, is accepted ... assessee and credited in the account of M/s. Spark Builders and Infra Project Ltd. It is the mandate of first proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act, that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date

Income Tax Officer- 24(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Narendra Kumar Jain, Andheri (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3422/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 269ASection 56(2)(x)

erred in not appreciating the fact that addition of Rs. 1,88,75,500/-was made towards difference in purchase consideration as per section 56(2)(x) under the head of "Income from other Sources" of the Act by the AO and the addition ... assessee for the said property] should not be added to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. 4. In response, assessee submitted that he has registered the agreement

Kiran Ashok Desai, Mumbai vs. The PCIT Mumbai-19, Mumbai

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed and order passed by the Ld

ITA 1794/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalkiran Ashok Desai, D-3, Triveni Building, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Maharashtra 400 066 Pan: Aabpd6275H ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit R. No. 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

that addition of INR 53,87,693 (50% of difference of purchase value and stamp duty value i.e.Rs.1,07,75,385) under section 56(2)(x) of the Act ought be made. 2.2 The Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: 3 Kiran Ashok Desai ... provisions of Section 56(2) (x) of the Act are anti-abusive provisions and does not apply to genuine/bonafide case; 2.2.2 Section 56(2) (x) of the Act is curative in nature and hence, the stamp duty value ought to be substituted by the Ld. DVO valuation in bonafide/genuine cases

Abul Wais Abdus Salam, Mumbai vs. ITO41(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 515/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2021-21 Abul Wais Abdus Salam Ito, Ward-41(1)(1), Mumbai Gala No. 17, Mbk Compound M/S A-1 Trading Co, Khairani Vs. Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai- 400072. Pan: Aaapa 7242 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, SR. DR
Section 154Section 234BSection 56(2)(x)

mentioned that there is gift from his brother of Rs. 20,00,000/- which is an exempt gift under the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) of the Act. However, the above amount was shown in Column No. 16(d) stating that amounts not credited to the profit

Tarun Mohan Jani, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2021-21 Tarun Mohan Jani To The Acit Flat No. 402, Plot No. 371/E-2, Circle (22) (1) Flora Avenue, Sandhu Garden Vs. Mumbai Junction, 10Th Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaipj 4691 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat B Raichandani & Bhagrati Sahu Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Bharat B Raichandani and Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, SR. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)

stating that tolerance is prescribed u/s 50C(2) of the Act but 3 Tarun Mohan Jani A.Y. 2020-21 does not apply to section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 9. The assessee aggrieved with that preferred appeal before

Virambhai Hargovanbhai Patel, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)

issue arise out of grounds no.2, 3 and 4, is, whether or not the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") which was confirmed by learned CIT(A). 5. In this case, the assesse filed return ... amount of ` 7,12,200, and restricted the assessee’s share to 50% of ` 7,12,200 i.e., ` 3,56,100, under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:– “On perusal

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Raja Babu Nimmaturi, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 701/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Structures (P) Ltd – Dev Agreement 5437/2017 (agriculture land). Page 2 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others vi) Section 56(2)(x) on the above (i.e. Excess of SD value over sale consideration). vii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the above (i.e. Excess ... after considering the relevant facts has rightly made the addition towards the difference in stamp duty value and consideration in terms of section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, their orders should be upheld. 48. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 700/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Structures (P) Ltd – Dev Agreement 5437/2017 (agriculture land). Page 2 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others vi) Section 56(2)(x) on the above (i.e. Excess of SD value over sale consideration). vii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the above (i.e. Excess ... after considering the relevant facts has rightly made the addition towards the difference in stamp duty value and consideration in terms of section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, their orders should be upheld. 48. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available

Raja Babu Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 621/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Structures (P) Ltd – Dev Agreement 5437/2017 (agriculture land). Page 2 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others vi) Section 56(2)(x) on the above (i.e. Excess of SD value over sale consideration). vii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the above (i.e. Excess ... after considering the relevant facts has rightly made the addition towards the difference in stamp duty value and consideration in terms of section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, their orders should be upheld. 48. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available

Sulochana Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 620/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Structures (P) Ltd – Dev Agreement 5437/2017 (agriculture land). Page 2 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others vi) Section 56(2)(x) on the above (i.e. Excess of SD value over sale consideration). vii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the above (i.e. Excess ... after considering the relevant facts has rightly made the addition towards the difference in stamp duty value and consideration in terms of section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, their orders should be upheld. 48. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available