“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)

Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3801/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia, Income Tax Officer, C-21, Malad Gaurav Co-Op. Ward-41(3)(3), Housing Society, Vs. Mumbai. Dahyabhai Patel Road, Hajibapu, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan : Adgpv4261R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sunil Maloo (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Sunil MalooFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

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

amount of Rs. 3,17,30,016/- being the difference of stamp duty value over the purchase consideration, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since confirmed the order and findings ... assessee is in appeal before us. 3. One of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee relates to erroneous application of section 56(2)(x) of the Act by the Assessing officer without reference to DVO in spite of objection raised by the assessee and sustenance of said action

Vikas Agarwal, Sambhal vs. Income Tax Officer, Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6268/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Saim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

6268_DEL_2025_Vikas Aggarwal vs ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI

Jayshree Narendra Amin, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2124/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2124/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jayshree Narendra Amin The Ito बनाम/ 20, Kaushalya Bungalows Ward-1(1)(1) V/S. Opp. Karnavati Club Ahmedabad – 380 014 Ramdevnagar, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 012 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abcpa 2934 N (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7345/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

submitted that the AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which was replaced with Section 56(2)(x) of the Act w.e.f. AY. 2018-19. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and an opportunity

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7344/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Mahendra Manshi Nagda, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7336/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahendra Manshi Nagda, Income Tax Officer, 202, Kanan Building, Ward-20(1)(1), Seth Motishaw Lane, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400010. Mumbai-400012. Pan : Aahpn5436C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sameer Dalal For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Sameer DalalFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

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

agreement value and market value amounting to Rs. 27,19,804/- was brought to tax by the AO, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. It was further submitted that during the appellate proceedings, submission was made by the assessee, reiterating the above facts

Manisha Devnani, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is rejected as non

ITA 344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Varis Isani (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: 19/01/2026

Section 115BSection 144C(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Assessing Officer has erred in law in applying the 5. The Lrd. Assessing Officer has erred in law in applying the provision of section 56(2)(x) for differential value between the section 56(2)(x) for differential value between the purchase price and stamp duty value ... executed by payment by the the entire transection and is not executed by payment by the appellant.. Therefore, applying provision of section 56(2)(x) & appellant.. Therefore, applying provision of section 56(2)(x) & appellant.. Therefore, applying provision of section 56(2)(x) & 115BBE is high 115BBE

Kanchan Rawal, Delhi vs. ITO NFAC Ward - 36 (1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 9010/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 147Section 56(2)(x)

Assessing Officer had duly accepted the same at page-8 of the assessment order dated 16.04.2024. Deleted accordingly. 3. Next comes the second section 56(2)(x) addition of Rs.18,17,700/- made in assessee’s hands in both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings. 4. There is no dispute

Murari Lal Harish Chand Jaiswal Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Murari Lal Harish Chand Vs Dcit Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., 6043, Central Circle-31, Naya Bans, Chandni Delhi Chowk, Delhi-110006. Pan-Aaacm6428P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.30/10268/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2021 Passed U/S 153A Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Is A Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Tobacco Products & Derived Income From Profits & Gains From Business & From Capital Gain/Loss & Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2018, Declaring Income Of Inr 1,09,82,630/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Following Two Issues:- (I) Icds Compliance & Adjustment (Ii) Income U/S 56(2)(X)

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

ITA No.203/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI

Anupam Guha, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1665/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Anupam Guha….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 5/17 Regent Park, Kol- 700040.. [Pan: Agjpg0760G] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar Patil, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

making addition of Rs.99,29,179/- on account of difference between stamp duty value and purchase value by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex parte order ... without considering the fact that the said land was stock in trade and was not covered in definition of property referred to in section 56(2)(x) and also the Ld. CIT(A) did not refer the case to the Departmental Valuation Officer to analyse the actual difference between

Sarbjeet Kour, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

ITA 440/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Sarbjeet Kour, A.C.I.T., T2/57, Ashok Road, East Singhbhum, Central Circle, Vs. Telco Works So, Jamshedpur-831004. Jamshedpur. Pan No. Bqapk 7229 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 2Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

THAT, the Assessment Order as also the Appellate Order has been passed without due application of judicious mind, inasmuch as, the provision of Section 56(2)(x) has to be read in its entirety and reliance cannot be placed only on a portion of any provision inasmuch ... case of the Appellant, third proviso of Section 56(2)(x) is of much relevance which provides that where the Assessee disputes the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority, aid of Subsection 2 of Section 50C had to be taken and a valuation officer should be appointed, which

Renu Bothra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 46, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2687/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(x)

determined the value of the property at Rs.83,68,700/-. It was the submission that consequently the AO invoked the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and had made the addition of the differential amount of Rs.18,94,800/- as the income of the assessee ... difference between the DVO’s report and the actual purchase consideration as disclosed by the assessee. It was submission that the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act has been amended w.e.f 01/04/2021 whereby 5% of tolerance limit has been increased to 10%. It was the submission

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

ITA 1457/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

assessee pursuant to the scheme of demerger was excessive than the value of shares allotted to the shareholders and hence he invoked Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO ascertained the fair value of the undertaking at Rs.412.27 crores which inter alia comprised of (a) Land at 2

Sarayu Krishna Kamat, Piramal Chamber vs. DCIT Circle 22(1), Piramal Chamber Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6738/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sampat NagapFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary (SR AR)

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

later payments was also specified therein. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee's case is squarely covered by the 1st proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act the stamp duty value applicable in her case would be as on the date of agreement, which is 23/08/2017, which ... makes her liable to be covered under the provisions of section 56(2)(x). However, the assessee is trying to read into the 2nd proviso to section 56(2)(x) and going by her payment history, to claim that in effect the date of agreement is the date of allotment

Income Tax Officer(E) Ward- 2(4), New Delhi, Civic Centre New Delhi vs. Prakash Sewa Trust, Paschim Vihar

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

view, even the show cause notice dated 23rd August 2022 is defective in as much as even though it had reference to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, it did not mention whether the Assessing Officer proposed to treat the stamp duty value as deemed Income of assessee under ... clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. This is because both are separate provisions and under either of these two clauses the stamp duty value could be treated as deemed income. By not specifying whether Section 56(2)(x)(a) or Section 56(2

Naveen Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

There was difference: ₹1,29,10,000. Therefore, the AO formed a belief that the assessee had earned deemed income under section 56(2)(x) of the Act to the extent of ₹1,29,10,000, which was not offered to tax. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were initiated, and the said ... only. since no land ownership was transferred, the assessee was only a one-third purchaser superstructure, therefore, there was no occasion to invoke section 56(2)(x) of the Act or make any addition in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above facts and legal position

Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-2 (6) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ Dhareshwar Appartment 56, Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Digvijay Plot, Floor, Manek Center, Nehru Road, Vs. Jamnagar (Guj) -361005 Jamnagar (Guj) -361006 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aqkpr6633C : (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Therefore, we note that aforesaid gifts squarely fall within the exemption of section56(2)(x) of the Act. The provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, are reproduced below, for ready reference as follows: “(x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons ... gift. It is a gift received from relative mentioned in the above section. This is a category of transfer under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act which are, from the plan language of the statute not taxable and hence no addition can be made in the hands

Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Mulund vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R

Section 250

difference between stamp value & purchase value)] as per Agreement of sale submitted by the Assessee and also as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) as discussed above. 9.1 The AO ultimately, held the differential amount of Rs. 75,05,715/- between the stamp duty value and purchase valuation ... deemed income under Section 56 (2) (x) of the Act, which works out to Rs. 25,01,905/- being 1/3rd in the hands of the Assessee and consequently added to the total income of the Assessee. 9.2 Further, the AO also treated the amount of Rs.20,50,325/- as unexplained

Meena Arjun Narang, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6651/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 147Section 56(2)(x)

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] has erred in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment. 2. Erroneous Addition under Section 56(2)(x) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition ... made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") under the head "Income from Other Sources" in terms of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in respect of the difference between the agreement value and the stamp duty value of the property, without appreciating the true

Amarjit Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4377/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik JainFor Respondent: 30/09/2025

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

difference between the stamp duty value and the stated stamp duty value and the stated consideration as income under consideration as income under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 6.1 The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that the The assessee contended ... submitted that in terms of the first proviso to section 2017. It was submitted that in terms of the first proviso to section 56(2)(x), the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement ought to 56(2)(x), the stamp duty value as on the date