“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)

Avinash Kumar, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1629/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Acit, Circle 2(1) Avinash Kumar Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Flat No.D/5, B Block, Shiv Kumar Asthali, Phase Ii, Nh-33 Road, Chowringhee Square, 7 Th Vs. Mango, Jamshedpur, Floor, Kolkata-700069 Jharkhand-831012 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bifpk4983A Assessee By : Shri Manoj Soni, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, DR

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 55Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ACIT

Smt Mohini Bharat Kumar Ludhani, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre. Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1868/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

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

endorsement in 2014) as an Agreement without appreciating that said Allotment letter is also an Agreement for the purposes of first proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) and thus the learned A.O. erred in making addition by taking stamp value prevailing on the date of registration and hence ... erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer making addition of Rs 56,00,002/- u/s 56(2)(x) without appreciating that Section 56(2)(x) will not apply in A.Y. 2018- 2019 as the immovable property was purchased in A.Y. 2011- 2012 and hence the addition of Rs 56

Glory Shipmanagement Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC Delhi, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

ITA 3149/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)(x)

acquisition of the immovable property and the fair market value determined by the DVO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer invoked provisions contained in Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act to make an addition of INR 3,86,000/- in the hands of the Appellant. 5. In appeal before ... though more than 5% of purchase consideration was below 10% of the purchase 2 consideration. Therefore, in terms of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) of the Act, no addition should have been made in the hands of the Appellant. However, the CIT(A) rejected the aforesaid contention

Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-34(1), Kolkata.

ITA 1211/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

value adopted by the assessee and FMV of the flats u/s 50C is within the range of ± 10% and, therefore, the provision of Section 56(2)(x)of the Act are not applicable which provides that where the market value of the property is more than the sale consideration received

Nisha Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 379/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

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

Bito-Lagertechnik Bittmann Gmbh, Garmany vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2440/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 48Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP has erred in charging income amounting to INR 12,18,33,600 to tax under Section 56(2)(x)(a) of the Act [without specifying the applicable sub-clause of Section 56(2)(x)] as: (a) the sum of money in the Appellant case ... such money has been admittedly received as consideration towards the sale of shares and therefore beyond the ambit of sub-clause (a) of Section 56(2)(x); and (b) the Appellant has admittedly not ‘received’ any immoveable property or ‘property’ as defined in the Explanation below Section 56(2)(x

Sana Hospitality Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2946/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

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

Rs.1,05,05,186/- u/s. 56(2)(x) made by the assessing officer for Property purchased in 2013 without appreciating the fact that section 56(2)(x) is applicable on or after 1 Day of April 2017. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and is not justified ... assessed income of INR 2,57,24,176/- after making addition of INR 1,05,05,186/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) 5. 2 against the Assessment Order, dated 24/05/2021, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide

Deep Malik, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 69

Kataria and the assessee. The gift received by certain relatives is not taxable in the hands of done as per provisions of the section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, assessee has made investment

Mohammad Shahid Khan, Damoh vs. ITO Sagar Ward-1, Sagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/JAB/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

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

Revenue under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the disputed property is purchased from relative therefore, the provision to section 56(2)(x) with explanation 56(2)(vii) is not applicable under the facts of the case. More over it not a capital asset being a rural ... under the facts and circumstances of the case and further submitted that the disputed property is purchased from relative, therefore, the provision of section 56(2)(x) with explanation 56(2)(vii) is not applicable under the facts of the case and the same is not a capital asset being

Poonam Dhavalkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT/ACIT/JCIT/ITO -NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2220/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

submitted a letter dated 27.11.2014, cannot be considered as the date of execution of agreement by any stretch of imagination. The proviso to section 56(2)(x) clearly states that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration are not same, the stamp ... registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. Section 56(2)(x) clearly stipulates that where any immovable property is received for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

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

gift to father or as a loan to father – both the transactions fulfill the requirements of respective sections for not being invoked – section 56(2)(x) r.w. 56(2)(vii) and section 68. Therefore, it will be incorrect to see the transaction of taking funds from Arpit Khandelwal from susceptible ... gift to father or as a loan to father – both the transactions fulfill the requirements of respective sections for not being invoked – section 56(2)(x) r.w. 56(2)(vii) and section 68. Therefore, it will be incorrect to see the 45 ITO vs. Ms Rama Allure LLP transaction

Dilip Talakshi Vora, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Principal Commissioner 3102, Spring Mills, Island Of Income Tax-20, City Centre, G.D. Room No. 418, 4 Th Floor, Ambekar Marg Near Piramal Chambers, Wadala Telephone Lal Baug, Parel, Exchange, Dadar (East) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400014 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpv0804C Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Paresh Shaparia Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(A), Mumbai-20, Dated 24.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Order Passed U/S 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. The Ld. Pr.Cit Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Passing The Order U/S 263 Which Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld Pr.Cit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Setting Aside Ao'S Order & Directing To Inquire Into The Claim Both In Terms Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. Cit Erred In Treating The Order Passed By Ao. U/S 143(3) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Relation To Purchase Of Property I.E Flat No. E-601 At Ambe Shraddha Kamothe In Panvel (Herein Referred As Said Flat) For Applicability Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

passing the order u/s 263 by setting aside AO's order and directing to inquire into the claim both in terms of section 56(2)(x) and section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. CIT erred in treating the order passed ... purchase of property i.e Flat no. E-601 at Ambe Shraddha Kamothe in Panvel (herein referred as said flat) for applicability of Section 56(2)(x) and section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 P a g e | 2 Dilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Pr.CIT-20 4. The Ld Pr.CIT

Rajeshbhai P . Mangukiya, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 341/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.333 & 341/Srt/2023 (Ays 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nayan Dhanjibhai Mangukiya 14, Rugved Bungalows, L P Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Principal Commissioner Of [Pan Alppm 6978 B] Income-Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Rajesh Parsottambhai Mangukiya 395001 15, Rugved Bungalows, L P Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 [Pan Ahopp 2114 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(x)

That on facts and merits of the case and in law the learned PCIT- 1,Surat has erred in misinterpreting the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act and proviso thereto. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above ground ... having 7% share in the immovable property. The Stamp Valuation Authority valued the said immovable property at Rs.19.48 crores thereby attracting provision of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld. PCIT further noted initially four person made agreement to sale with seller on 30.08.2010 and paid part payment

Nayan Dhanjibhai Mangukiya, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 333/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Rhythm Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

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

eyes of law. His direction to the Ld. AO also is, therefore not sustainable. 6.1 The Ld. AR further pointed out that section 56(2)(x) which may be applicable in case of companies was introduced w.e.f. AY 2018-19 but in 3 assessee company’s case AY involved ... Therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(x) also cannot be made applicable to the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in ITO vs. M/s. Sharan Svadha LLP 2022(10)TMI457 decided on 11.10.2022. 6.2 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order cannot be held

Imran Mohamed Ali Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2056/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2018-19) Imran Mohamed Ali Kapadia, 1702/1703 Sumer Park, Bldg. No.1, Seth Motishah Cross Lane, Byculla, Mumbai 400 008 Pan: Aupk-9074-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Ward 20(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, G.B.Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 06.04.2023, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri. Pratik Mehta Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Solitary Issue In Present Appeal Is Against The Addition Of ₹30,47,000/- U/S 56(2)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Pratik MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

Section 56(2)(x)

stamp duty value of flat had considerably increased to ₹ 1,30,94,000/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and made addition of difference between the stamp duty value and total consideration. Since, share of the assessee in flat ... should be considered for the purpose of 3 determination of Fair Market Value (FMA) of immovable property. He referred to the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 2.2. Without prejudice to his primary submission, the Ld. AR submits that in the case of assessee’s brother

Elvis Zepherin Crasto, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleelvis Zepherin Crasto V. Income Tax Officer Gorai Village, Jui Pada International Taxation Gorai Essel World Road Ward – 2(1)(1) Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Asgpc6280N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 56(2)Section 69

with no direct access, there is no demand for resale 2. Maintenance costs are too high annually 4. The AO erroneously considered the Section 56(2)(x) provides that the difference difference in the SDV and the between the SDV and agreement value will be consideration u/s 56(2 ... than the actual sale consideration. This led to the loss of tax to the government, and thus to avoid this, section 50C and Section 56 (2)(x) were introduced as two sides of a coin. Section 50C states the taxability of such cases in the hands of the seller while

Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, Surat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 2(1)(3), Surat

In the result, ground No

ITA 354/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Bcwpp 1537 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

share of assessee and her mother is 27.78% and 72.22% respectively. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) is applicable as the assessee has shown inadequate consideration for purchase of immovable ... assessee for giving his comment/objection, however, no comment/reply of assessee was received by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act of Rs. 2,29,880/- and Rs. 10.00 lacs on account of unexplained cash credit under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S Dianco, Mumbai

ITA 222/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/S Dianco, Central Circle-4, C-210, Prasad Chambers, Opera Vs. Surat. House, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaafd 2501 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI