“section 56(2)(x)”

Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahavir Enterprises, Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the said addition was made following provisions of the Section 56(2)(x) of the Act? Mahavir Enterprises ITA no.1304/Mum./2023 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT ... ground which may be necessary.” 3. The only dispute raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act on account of the difference in stamp duty value and the consideration paid by the assessee as the highest bidder. 4. The facts

Anil Todarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(4)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

inter-alia that :- “First Ground of Appeal: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.5,81,264 under section 56(2)(x). 2 Shri Anil Todarwal 2. He failed to take into consideration that the difference between the fair value reported in the report ... District Valuation Officer and the actual purchase consideration was within the permissible tolerance limit of 5% as stated in section 56(2)(x). 3. The appellant prays that the addition of 5,81,264 under section 56(2)(x) be deleted.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication

Hubtown Ltd, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), Mum

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

income of Rs.4,75,11,720/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 153A wherein he had made a protective addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act to the tune 3 ITA 3259/Mum/2022 Hubtown Limited of Rs.4,86,23,95,000/- and, also an addition under section ... assessee as to why the amount cannot be assessed as an income under section 41(1) or under section 68 or under section 56(2)(x) in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, accordingly made an addition of Rs.4,86,23,95,000/- under section 56(2)(x

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Sayed, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Aasifa Khan Submitted That Before The Ld. Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Assessee Could Not Appear Because The Notices Issued On The Email Of The Assessee & She Was Not Aware Of Any Such E-Mail Sent As She Is Not An Educated Person. On Merits She Submitted That Assessee Had Purchased Property I.E. A Small Shop At Shop No.3, Ground Floor, Admeasuring Area 190 Sq.Ft Built Up, Bearing C.S.No.1354, Mahim Division Situated At Cadle Castle Co- Operative Housing Society Ltd, Veer Savarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016. Alongwith Another Co-Owner Shri Siraj Ahmed Merchant Had Purchased A Shop Premise For A Consideration Of Rs.20,00,000/- & Both The Co-Owners Have Paid Rs.10,00,000/- Each. However, The Stamp Value Of The Said Property Was Determined At Rs.37,04,000/- As Mentioned In The Deed Of Transfer.

held that since stamp value of 3 Mr. Nisar Ahmed Sayed the property exceeds actual purchase value and therefore, as per Section 56(2)(x). The excess is deemed to be income of the assessee and accordingly, he held that there is a difference of Rs.17,04,000/- and since

Shabbir Rajabali Vakil, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshabbir Rajabali Vakil Vs. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward 701, Silver View, 4(3)(1), Room No. 1625, Chimbai Road, Bandra 16Th Floor, Air India West, Mumbai – 400050 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abvpv6524C Appellant .. Respondent

P a g e | 1 Shabbir Rajabali Vakil Vs. ITO (IT) Ward 4(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal, Mumbai vs. National E Assessmet Centre, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebenudhar Gokulanand Vs. National E Assessment Biswal, Centre, H 302, Room.No 401,2 Nd Shanti Complex, Floor, E Ramp, Saki Vihar Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Powai, Stadium, Mumbai – 400072, New Delhi-110003. Pan/Gir No. : Adopb9106B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Tanmay Phadke.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per The Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)]Despite Concluding That The Agreement For Sale Was Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. Entered Into On 13.07.2009 (I.E. Prior To 01.04.2017), Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Which Was Inserted Vide Finance Act, 2017 & Made Expressly Applicable From 01.04.2017 Are Not Applicable To The Facts Under Consideration. The Addition Of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% Of Rs. 19,76,686/-) As Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Is Bad In Law & May Be Deleted.

agreement for sale was Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. entered into on 13.07.2009 (i.e. prior to 01.04.2017), failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act which was inserted vide Finance Act, 2017 and made expressly applicable from 01.04.2017 are not applicable to the facts under ... consideration. The addition of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% of Rs. 19,76,686/-) as confirmed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act is bad in law and may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts

Sulochana Saijan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,92,650/- u/s 56(2)(x) while doing so, the provisions of the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) have been ignored. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... assessment proceedings which reflects that the payment was made before the agreement date. Thus, satisfying both the conditions under the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The provision does 2 | P a g e not prescribe quantum of payment to be made.” 3. Briefly stated facts

Swati Atul Kadakia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleswati Atul Kadakia V. Income Tax Officer – 16(3)(1) Room No. 447 1302, Vasant Aradhana Tower Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpk8725D (Appellant) (Respondent)

with builder. The assessee has executed the purchase agreement in the year under consideration. Thus, the difference only due to time difference. Further Section 56(2)(x)(b) clearly states that- Where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 01st ... through a bank account on or before the date of agreement or transfer of such immovable property As per the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (Act) where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable

Axia Infoserve LLP, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

assessee and was asked as to why addition of ₹.9,30,500/- may not be made by invoking the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 6. Further, Assessing Officer observed that as per copy of another Agreement of Sale executed on 28.07.2017, assessee made investment Page ... issued to the assessee as to why the addition of ₹.88,900/- should not be made by invoking the provision of the section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 7. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “3. With respect to investment in flat

Dy.Comm of Income Tax CC 5(2) Central RG. -5, Mumbai vs. Parshvanath Comtrade LLP, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Parsvanatha Comtrade Llp Dcit-Cc-5(2) F 501, Sterling Court, Central Range-5, Maheshwari Nagar, Room No.1906, Marol-Midc Road Andheri Air India Building, Vs. Nariman Point, (E) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqfp9841A Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

learned Assessing Officer was of the opinion that assessee has received benefit of ₹33.35 per share which is chargeable to tax under Section 56(2) (X) of the Act. Thus, ₹83,37,50,000/- was difference between quoted price of the share and price at which shares were purchased ... March, 2018. The assessee also relied on circular no.704 dated 28th April, 1995. Accordingly, assessee submitted that no addition can be made under Section 56(2) (X) of the Act. 06. The learned Assessing Officer found that DCIT BPU- 1, Mumbai has passed an order under Section

Karan Pravinkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 20(1) (1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

part addition of Rs.2,89,667/- (being l/3rd of total addition of Rs.8,69,000/- in the assessment order) on account of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by Ld. AO with regards to the difference between market value as per stamp valuation and consideration

ACIT Cent. Cir5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

that the learned CIT(A) should have held that the impugned amount should have been assessed an income of the assessee under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO has raised this alternative contention on the ground that the power of learned CIT(A) is co-terminus with ... ground raised by the AO. 10 M/s. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 16. Be that as it may, we notice that the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act are attracted when any person “receives” any sum of money without consideration from any other person during a particular year

Mukesh Shivgan Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA No.: 1811/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI „H‟ BENCH

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

Section 28(iv) of the Act amounting to Rs. 42,45,000/- by writing back unsecured loan from Singhi Associates. ii. Addition under Section 56(2) (x) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,81,53,200/-. 05. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who passed appellate ... following decision of Honourable Supreme court in CIT V Mahindra & Mahindra Limited [ 404 ITR 1 (SC) . b. With respect to the addition under Section 56(2) (x) of the Act of Rs. 1,81,53,200/-. He upheld the addition of Rs. 30,32,300/- and deleted the addition

Smt Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 30(1) (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Ito, Ward-30(1)(4), B-403, Sanskriti Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Kedermal Road, Malad (East) Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aumpk 5669 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

between the Stamp Duty Value and cost of purchase was less than 10% and therefore, such difference was to be ignored as per section 56(2) (x)(b)(B). 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that amendment brought in section 56(2) (x)b)(B) being ... further appeal, the assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that w.e.f. 01.04.2019 an amendment has been brought to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), according to which if the difference between the stamp duty consideration and agreed consideration or transaction value, was in excess of 5% of the agreed

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

acquisition and section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act to include sum of money or value of property referred to in section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act in the definition of income. 33.6. Applicability: These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2017 and the said ... specific provisions of section 56(2)(vii) or (viia), there was no necessity to insert the specific provision by way of section 56(2)(x) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017. 214. Since the receipt of shares of Zee News Ltd. by the appellant at NIL consideration

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

acquisition and section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act to include sum of money or value of property referred to in section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act in the definition of income. 33.6. Applicability: These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2017 and the said ... specific provisions of section 56(2)(vii) or (viia), there was no necessity to insert the specific provision by way of section 56(2)(x) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017. 214. Since the receipt of shares of Zee News Ltd. by the appellant at NIL consideration