← 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)

Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Ahmedabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 629/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Income Tax Officer Sadhu Vaswani Mansion, Vs Ward 1(3)(1), Mirghawad, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380002 Gujarat Pan: Aljpp2059A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”], Dated 01.08.2023, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Wherein The Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) As Per The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As "The Act".

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

land made by the aunt of the appellant's husband to appellant under family settlement arrangement cannot be subjected to provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act 3. The Ld. NFAC-CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of Assessing Officer making addition ... under section 56(2)(x) of the Act without disputing rebutting the contention of the appellant that gift received was under family settlement/arrangement and without appreciating the explanations and submissions made before the Assessing Officer as well as in the course of appellate proceedings. The brief facts of the case

Aila Infrastructure Private Limited, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Aila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8F/95, Sonawala Building, Sleater Road, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 007. Pan: Aakca 5414B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 12(1)-1, Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala & Ms. Aruna Aiyar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 69Section 69B

taxmann.com 112 (Mumbai - Trib.) Benudhar Gokul Anand Biswal v. NEAC “The assessee has purchased the flat vide agreement dated 13-7-2009 and section 56(2)(x) was not in the statute book, and also it is a well-settled principle of law that a charging section cannot be pressed ... into service retrospectively unless it is specifically provided for by the legislature. The provisions of section 56(2)(x) are incorporated in the Finance Act, 2017 with the prospective applicability from assessment year 2017-18 and the transactions entered into prior to 1-4-2017 would not suffer any implications

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Omprakash Gopaldas Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 3816/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

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

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the I.T.Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,39,800/- being a difference of the stamp value of the property purchases is Rs.1 ... circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), has erred in not appreciating the fact that in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the I.T.Act, 1961. by the A.O., wherein it is stated that when stamp value of property exceeds sale consideration then the difference

Mohd Maaz Ismail Patel/ Individual, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-41(4)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3730/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

selected for scrutiny through CASS for examination “investment in immovable property” as the purchase value of the property along with income disclosed under section 56(2)(x) of the Act was substantially less than the value as per stamp valuation. It was observed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that ... between the stamp duty value of the property and purchase value should not be brought to tax in accordance with the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. In response, the assessee furnished the copy of the purchase deed along with the stamp duty documents of the property

Manharbhai Natvarlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT- 1, Ahmedabad

ITA 268/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

2)(x) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer had not properly verified this issue and also did not examined the applicability of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, therefore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests ... immovable property was Rs.3,80,27,000/- as mentioned in the sale-deed, therefore, there was no scope of applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. As the case was throughly examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld.PCIT

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

Assessee-company filed its return of income - Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny - Assessing Officer made addition under section 43CA read with section 56(2)(x) - By virtue of this addition, penalty proceedings under section 270A was initiated on account of misreporting of income - Whether since additions were being

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

Assessee-company filed its return of income - Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny - Assessing Officer made addition under section 43CA read with section 56(2)(x) - By virtue of this addition, penalty proceedings under section 270A was initiated on account of misreporting of income - Whether since additions were being

Gemmological Inistitute of India, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3785/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 43Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “G” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Gemmological Inistitute of India, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3784/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 43Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “G” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Abalabba Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 57(2)Section 69Section 698Section 69B

assessee being a company the deemed income could have been added in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that section 56(2)(x) which was brought into legislature to pluck the loophole by including all classes of assessees is effective from AY 2017- Abalabba Developers ... difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration is not applicable to assessee being a company and that section 56(2)(x) inserted to make all assessee liable to tax towards such transaction is applicable only from AY 2017-18 and (iii) The impugned transaction which is part

Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 146/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 146/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd.,……………………..Appellant T-68, Tegharia Main Road, Post-Hatiara, Behind Lokenath Mandir, Kolkata-700059, West Bengal [Pan:Aadcr6464K] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….…Respondent Circle11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115Section 15Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

appeal, but the solitary substantial issue raised in these grounds is whether an addition of Rs.10,00,000/- with the aid of section 56(2)(x)(b) deserves to be made in the hands of the assessee or not. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... Stamp Duty Valuation Authority for charging the stamp should not be construed as a deemed gift in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act or not. In response to the notice, the assessee has submitted that it has purchased the property

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber vs. Farida Zulfikar Lokhandwala, Mumbai

ITA 2512/MUM/2023[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.2512/मुं/2023(नि.व.2020-21)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.Gopal & Om Kandalkar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.AR
Section 50C(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ ”, मुंबई श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Kirankumar Amrutlal Patel, Mehsana vs. The CIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 459/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Seller and at page number 19, it has been mentioned that no balance amount payable by the Purchasers, therefore, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, the difference between the stamp value of I.T.A No. 459/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 3 Kirankumar Amrutlal

Satyam Print House, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2898/MUM/2023[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

asked to show cause why difference of INR 1,13,55,630/- should not be treated as income of the Assessee under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. In response, the Assessee submitted that the difference in the valuation was on account of the fact that the Assessee ... facts were disclosed in the return as well as during the assessment proceedings. In the present case the addition has been made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act by invoking the deeming provisions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessee has under-reported income. Further, the Assessee

Britannia Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

being erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue citing five issues, which are as under:- (i) Applicability of section 56(2)(x) on acquisition of leasehold land & building; 2 Britannia Industries Limited (ii) Disallowance of expenditure on scientific research ... Limited 7. While arguing his second plea , the ld. Counsel vehemently submitted that ld. PCIT’s action of holding that the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act applicable to the acquisition of leasehold interest in land and building as well as freehold land parcel at Ranjangaon

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2169/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal/Shri Mani
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 19Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Smt. Pinki Chetan Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3629/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare, DR
Section 2Section 56(2)(x)

only issue contended in this appeal is the addition to the extent of Rs. 17,12,962/- made by the AO under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) considering the date of acquisition of immovable property as the date of agreement and not the date ... stamp duty valued on the date of sale was Rs. 2,81,92,800/- and accordingly the AO invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the advance amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- towards purchase of flat was given

Guhagar Taluka Kunbi Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3242/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

Assessing Officer made the addition of differential amount of INR 60,19,506/- in the hands of the Appellant by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. While making the aforesaid addition vide Assessment Order, dated 20/02/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections ... return of 2 income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Being aggrieved by the above addition of INR 60,19,506/- under 4. Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf

Ozone Overseas P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: “1. That
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

these shares is Rs.2392. Thus, the FMV purchases exceeds the price of shares by Rs.97 per share. As per the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(C) (B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where any person receives in any previous year any property other than Page ... examining the valuation and other particulars of the investment has made no addition. The Ld. PCIT observed that as per the provision of Section 56(2) (x)(c)(B) of the Act where a person received any previous year, any property other than immovable property the aggregate fair market value

Saravanan Priya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1245/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ए, "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A ’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी महावीर