← 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)

Cherie Tandon Saldahna, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Mumbai

ITA 6576/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in applying the provisions of section 56(2)(x) and making an addition of Rs. 1,14,87,300, while ignoring the proviso to section 56(2)(x) which is applicable ... allotment i.e. 03.05.2011. Such addition is bad in law." 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act in respect of two residential flats purchased by the assessee. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

Vijay Pratap Singh Chauhan, Chanderi Distt Ashok Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar

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

ITA 127/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Pratap Singh Chauhan Vs. Ito, Nanakpur Chanderi Ashoknagar Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh Pan : Fpnps4033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Sogani, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 148Section 2Section 50(2)(x)Section 50CSection 56(2)(X)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017

Vallabhbhai Dudabhai Chhatrala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3) (1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 815/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblevallabhbhai Dudabhai Chhatrala, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 6, Prabhu Darshan Soc. Nr. Ward-3(3)(5), Dhameliya Nagar, Current Jurisdiction, Varacha Road, Ward-3(3)(1), Rajhans Point, Surat-395006. Surat-395006. [Pan : Aeepc8550 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

converted from Section 69 to 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act or any direction was given. We find that the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) was inserted in the statue book from AY 2014-15, thus, no such provisions are applicable on the transaction of assessee. Even ... otherwise, there is no finding of ld CIT(A) to make addition under section 56(2) (x)(b). So far as finding of lower authorities that they are in possession of a satakat 3. executed by the original owners with Shankar Chaganlal Shah and Govind K. Bhadiyadra for a consideration

Pramod Salvi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8667/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpramod Salvi 153, Poornanand Chs, Cr Dungarshi Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai - 400006. ............... Appellant Pan: Aajps3189B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400020

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act in respect of two residential flats purchased by the assessee. 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

allotment letters issued to an assessee should be considered as assessee should be considered as agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56 ... 2)(x). The section 56(2)(x), which is pari materia pari materia to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. Following the ratio

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5319/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

allotment letters issued to an assessee should be considered as assessee should be considered as agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56 ... 2)(x). The section 56(2)(x), which is pari materia pari materia to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. Following the ratio

Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5049/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

with section 144B vide order dated 26.04.2021. In the said assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 66,70,000/- under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) on account of difference between the stamp duty value of property and consideration shown by the assessee. Consequent thereto, penalty proceedings ... course of hearing before us the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the quantum addition of Rs. 66,70,000/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act in the assessment order dated 26.04.2021 is still pending adjudication before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10290409 filed

Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2578/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2577 & 2578/Kol/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2021-22) Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited)……….……….……Appellant Octavius Centre, 1St Floor, 15B, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabch9212M] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata….……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 08.09.25 & 28.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Assessee & Facts Are Similar, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y Declaring Nil Income. A Search & Seizure

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

issued and the assessee filed replies. Thereafter, a SCN was issued to the assessee to explain the following (i) why the provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act should not be invoked on account of difference in Stamp Duty Value and Purchase Price amounting to Rs.1 ... should not be added to the total income. The assessee vides its submission dated 12/03/2025 replied to issue no. (1) that provision of section 56(2) (x) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and since all the immovable properties were purchased before such date

Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2577/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2577 & 2578/Kol/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2021-22) Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited)……….……….……Appellant Octavius Centre, 1St Floor, 15B, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabch9212M] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata….……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 08.09.25 & 28.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Assessee & Facts Are Similar, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y Declaring Nil Income. A Search & Seizure

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

issued and the assessee filed replies. Thereafter, a SCN was issued to the assessee to explain the following (i) why the provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act should not be invoked on account of difference in Stamp Duty Value and Purchase Price amounting to Rs.1 ... should not be added to the total income. The assessee vides its submission dated 12/03/2025 replied to issue no. (1) that provision of section 56(2) (x) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and since all the immovable properties were purchased before such date

Jawaharlal Devidas Chhabria, Champa Gully, Cross Lane, Kalbadevi vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(6), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

ITA 7553/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

appeal:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,92,000 under section 56(2) (x) without appreciating that the difference between the agreement value and the DVO-determined value represents only an estimated variation arising from a technical ... accruing to the appellant. Further, the Legislature has subsequently recognised permissible valuation variations by introducing safe-harbour limits of 5% and 10% under section 56(2) (x) in later years, thereby acknowledging that minor differences between stated consideration and valuation do not warrant taxation. Relief Claimed: The appellant prays that

ITO, Delhi vs. Varun Manchanda, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2278/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Varun Arya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

with the assessee, amount gifted etc to enable the Ld. AO to verify the allowability of gifts viz-a-viz the provisions of section 56(2)(x) which clearly specify the conditions under which such gifts are not taxable. We are thus, of the considered view that the amount

Nakoda Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

ITA 4500/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 142A(6)Section 142A(7)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,66,000 under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the bona fide nature of the transaction and the fact that the purchase was executed at fair market value based

Hasmukh Hiralal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 7532/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarhasmukh Hiralal Shah National Faceless 9/13, Nehru Nagar, Opp. Appeal Centre Bdd Chawl No. 9, Worli Vs. /Ito-22(1)(6), Mumbai-400 018 Room No. 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aavps2340A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

against the agreement value of Rs. 1,51,00,000/-, resulting in a difference of Rs. 20,81,968/-. Invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the 4 Hasmukh Hiralal Shah Act, the Assessing Officer treated the said difference as income from other sources. Accordingly, the total income ... agreement value of Rs. 1,51,00,000/-. It was further submitted that the addition 6 Hasmukh Hiralal Shah under section 69 and section 56(2)(x) could not have been sustained without examining these aspects. 12. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, did not raise any objection

Palapetty Velappan Shakthidaran, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Nashik

ITA 1939/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vignaraj Bhat N, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250Section 44ASection 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'SMC' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Mandyam Krishnakumar Sathyanarayana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1233/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri GS Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250Section 44ASection 56Section 57

assessee has produced documentary evidence in support of the same. The said receipt is therefore covered by the exclusion provided in section 56(2)(x) of the Act and cannot be brought to tax. 8.6 With regard to the commission receipts of ₹4,55,000, even though the same

Malika, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/LKW/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Pandey, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)(X)Section 69

property for only Rs. 12,00,000/- and therefore, the difference of Rs. 6,40,000/- was added back by him under section 56(2)(X). While completing the assessment, the ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) for the failure of the assessee to comply

Aero Pack Products Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 6697/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Aero Pack Products Private Limited 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is directed against the adjustment of ₹52,52,000/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act by the Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the return under section 143(1). The assessee contends that the said ... while processing the return, treated the difference between the stated consideration and the stamp duty value as income under section 56(2)(x) and made an adjustment of ₹52,52,000/-. 4. In appellate proceedings, the learned first appellate authority, acknowledging the assessee’s objection to the stamp duty valuation

Naresh Kumar Morya, Narela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(1), Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2292/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Hooda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

find that the differential consideration of Rs. 3,32,960 is within the 10 percent tolerance limit prescribed in the Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of Section Naresh Kumar Morya 56(2)(x) of the Act was introduced ... only from 1-4-2017. We are conscious of the fact that provisions of section 56(2)(x) was introduced from 1.4.2017 and that the fourth proviso thereon providing the tolerance limit of 10 percent had been introduced from 1.4.2021. We also find that the third proviso to section

Mr Akil Abbas Rassai, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7622/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmr. Akil Abbas Rassai Dcit Cirlce-22(1), 144 Gulistan, S. V. Road Piramal Chambers, Khar West, Mumbai - Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- 400 052 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacpr1058F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

been confirmed. 2. The penalty in question has been levied in respect of an addition of Rs.82,35,500/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 2 Mr. Akil Abbas Rassai At the very outset, the learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the very ... foundation of the penalty proceedings, namely, the quantum addition under section 56(2)(x), no longer survives in its present form. It was submitted that this Tribunal, vide its order dated 02.12.2025, has set aside the said quantum addition and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

V S Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2633/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

account of shares of various companies settled/ contributed to the Appellant as ‘Income from other sources’ under section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC ought to have appreciated that at the time ... relation to advance tax payment claimed as refund in the return of Income as ‘income from other sources’ under section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action