“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)

Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offcier 24(1)(1), Piramal Chamber

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 3790/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi Ito-24(1)(1) E-651, B Wing, 6Th Floor Room No. 702 New Chandra Chsl, Veera Desai Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers Andheri West Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Amypk5431D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld Dr Date Of Hearing : 06 /11/2025 Date Of : 24/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, LdFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 68Section 69Section 80C

Officer did not dispute or mention any word. 8. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the aforesaid remand report and found that provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee, because this particular section has been introduced to the Income

Ish Bhatia, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7610/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7610/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Ish Bhatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, 2770/5, Chuna Mandi Pahar Ganj, Ward-62(1), New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afcpb4844A Assessee By: Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca & Sh. Mohit Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/10758867882(1) Dated 29.04.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 56(2)(x) of the Act to add the difference between the assessee’s actual purchase price of Rs.9,00,000/- and stamp value of the relevant ... Explanatory Memorandum’s clause 33.6 thereto. It is reiterated that the assessee had acquired the asset in issue on 06.06.2016 only. The impugned section 56(2)(x) addition is deleted in very term therefore. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/12/2025. (Satbeer

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate vs. Royal Developers, Nr. Ip Mission School, Muglisa

ITA 860/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh K KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

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

assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 25.09.2021, the Assessing Officer also adverted to the applicability of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, though no separate addition was made thereunder since the entire stamp duty value had already been brought to tax under section 69. 3. On appeal ... Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made under section 69 of the Act. However, no independent finding was recorded on the applicability of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition observing as under: “6. In Ground No.1, 2 and 3, the appellant

Smt Suruchi Satish Sarmalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5942/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 154Section 250Section 270A

have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is found that the addition in this case was made under the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act can be imposed for such deeming ... context of penalty under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting the income. In that case also, the addition was made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which was held as not falling in the category of underreporting or misreporting of income. 7.1 The assessee has also

Shankar Polmersetty, Bagbera Kitadih vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 454/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.454/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Polmersetty.... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant H.No.12, Gel Church Mohlla, Gurudwara Road, Tatanagar, Ps Bagbera, Kitadih, Jharkhand- 831002. [Pan: Ajspp1582B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Jamshedpur.….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 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 12.11.2024 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 Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed By Making An Addition Of ₹12,21,500 Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Purchased A Flat For A Consideration Of ₹9,35,000, Whereas The Stamp Duty Value Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was ₹21,56,500. Accordingly, The Difference Was Treated As Income Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act. The Assessee Submitted That The Booking Of The Flat Was Made On 28.06.2010 & An Advance Payment Of ₹51,000 Was Made Through Account Payee Cheque On The Date Of Agreement. It Was Further Contended That The Property Is Situated In A Rural Area & The Stamp Duty Value As On The Date Of Agreement Was Much Lower Than

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

case are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed by making an addition of ₹12,21,500 under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee purchased a flat for a consideration of ₹9,35,000, whereas ... stamp duty value adopted by the stamp valuation authority was ₹21,56,500. Accordingly, the difference was treated as income under section 56(2)(x) of the act. The assessee submitted that the booking of the flat was made on 28.06.2010, and an advance payment of ₹51,000 was made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Sanjitha Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1173/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

that most of the amounts were received by her as gifts from her relatives. The assessee also relied on the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(c) of the Act and objected that the gifts received from the relatives could not be treated as income

Raghavendra Ramakrishna Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6Th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Afapn9077M) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ito (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 02.12.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Applicant States That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Principle Laid

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

issue in paragraph 6.3, ld. DRP observed that allotment letter issued by the builder is not an agreement in terms of proviso to section 56(2)(x)/56(2)(vii)(b) and thus, concluded that allotment letter cannot be claimed to be an agreement. It thus, rejected the objections ... gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as 8 ITA No 2027/Mum/2025 AY: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Naik provision of section 56(2)(x)/56(2)(vii)(b). The proviso to the said section in explicit terms mentions about the value which needs to be considered where

Manekchand Devichand Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs. NFAC/ ITO, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 196/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Manekchand Devichand Bafna Ito-19(2)(2) Huf Piramal Chamber 2/22, Racha Building No. 2 Steater Vs. Lalbaugh, Parel Road, Tardeo Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 007. Pan : Aaehm0193G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

only, which is admittedly not more than 10% the tolerance limit, as introduced in section 56(2)(x)(b)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the addition of Rs. 3,91,000/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act by Assessing Officer and affirmed by Ld. Commissioner, is unsustainable

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 32MSection 56(2)(x)

INR.8,70,68,190/-, the Assessing Officer made addition of INR.18,48,70,810/- (INR.27,19,39,000 - INR.8,70,68,190/-) under Section 56(2)(x) of Act vide Assessment Order, dated 23/09/2022. 4 Assessment Year 2020-2021 5. The appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the aforesaid addition ... yield any favorable results as the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act and dismissed the appeal holding as under: “7. The appellant has purchased/acquired one property for a transaction value of Rs. 8,70,68,190/- during

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

squarely fall within the statutory definition of "relatives," and therefore, by express legislative exclusion, such receipts do not attract the operation of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 52. The Ld. AR emphasised that section 68 of the Act is a deeming provision intended to cover unexplained or unsubstantiated ... premise of alleged abnormal valuation of the assets transferred. 69. It was further submitted that in terms of the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, any receipt of immovable property from persons falling within the definition of "relative" is specifically excluded from the ambit of taxation

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by

Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income - Assessing Officer had passed an assessment order under section 143(3) -Pr. Commissioner was of view that provisions of section 56(2)(x) were applicable to acquisition of leasehold interest in land and building as well as freehold land parcel Accordingly, he assuming jurisdiction under section ... available to Pr. Commissioner merely re-examining issue file of assessment order was erroneous. Held, yes Whether even otherwise, provisions of section 56(2)(x) were not applicable to acquisition of leasehold rights in land and building Held, yes [Paras 16 and 17] [In favour of assessee] III. Section

Mohammad Saidullah, East Champaran vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (3), Motihari

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

ITA 245/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

mentioned in the sale deed, and there were other reasons justifying the price and, therefore, there was no question of any addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. As regards the disallowance made on account of expenses claimed on estimated basis, the assessee contended that

Raghvendra Singh, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Bamboo Villa, Calcutta

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

ITA 1763/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1763/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raghvendra Singh,……………….………...……Appellant 13, Burnt Salt Gola Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Bjhps6740J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-62(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Vidyut Sethi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

Rs.16,00,000/-) Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs.39,49,613/- to the total income of the assessee under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also initiated penalty proceedings separately under section 270A of the Act, 3 Raghvendra Singh

Zulekha Haji Attarwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(1), Lalbaug

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the

ITA 4978/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234Section 270ASection 54Section 56(2)(x)

Zulekha Haji Attarwala, Mumbai Realtors was Rs.48,56,250/- towards purchase of immovable property. As per the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, Stamp duty value was required to be taken into consideration. The stamp duty value i.e. Market Value of the property in question ... only under the notarized agreement between seller and buyer. The allotment letter cannot take place of an agreement. Further, the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) also talked about the date of agreement and not the allotment. The assessee submitted the computation of Long Term Capital Gains claiming

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5761/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidences to substantiate the fact that the impugned transaction is cancelled whereby the provisions of section 56(2)(x) is not applicable. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Laxman Kanaiyalal Dharmani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5675/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

referred to as the "Ld. CTT(A)") has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer where he had applied provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(x) of the Act without appreciating that the said provisions do not apply in the present case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Dinesh Sunderrao Ghosalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4770/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

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

appeal:- “1. That the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 11/06/2025, confirming the addition of Rs.7529652/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and evidence on record, and liable to be quashed ... difference between the agreement value and the stamp duty value (SDV) of the immovable property purchased by the appellant is taxable under Section 56(2)(x), without appreciating that the transaction was a bona fide distress sale executed due to loan recovery proceedings initiated against the seller by Bank

Saurav Deb Purkayastha, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Noida

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6694/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2022-23

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

sole substantive issue between the parties. A perusal of the case file indicates that both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings have invoked section 56(2)(x) addition of Rs. 15,34,640/- which represents the difference between the assessee’s capital asset’s sale value of Rs. 75.50 lakhs

Paras Ramlal Jaiswar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5935/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19 Paras Ramlal Jaiswar, Income Tax Officer, Flat No.4, Parijat Bldg, Ward-42(1)(4), Pandey Nagar, Raval Pada, Vs. Room No. 736, Dahisar East, Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra-400068. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Afdpj3068H Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain For Revenue : Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 14-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr.DR

Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned, Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition under section 56(2)(x) treating difference between Purchase Consideration and Stamp Duty Value as income and making addition of Rs. 3,40,412/- to the total Income