← 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)

Dilip Kantilal Kubavat, Porbandar vs. ITO WD 2(3), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

person referred to in clauses (ii) to (vi);” Dilip Kantilal Kubavat 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which are as under: “Section 56(2)(x) - where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person ... money or any property received- (1) from any relative; or Therefore, considering the above provisions of the law, that is, Section 56(2)(x), any property transferred to the relative for inadequate/lower consideration is not be termed as income and therefore, the same is not taxable as per the provisions

Tanveer Bano, Unnao vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(4), Unnao

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.6,90,000/- was made under section 69 and further addition of Rs.4,64,000/- was made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2025

Shri Narendra Kundanmalji, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

ITA 5047/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Kundanmalji Ito, Nfac, Delhi Dhoka, 1/A, Baitul Aman, Nagpada Junction, 2, Vs. Maulana Azad Rod, Mumbai-400 008 Pan: Aabpd 1855 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “B” BENCHES :: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Haresh Damji Shah, Mahalaxmi Building, Hindu Colony vs. ITO, Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4445/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

made in the year of purchase. 4. A. The learned AO has erred in applying the provisions of Section 50C and Section 56(2)(x) when the appellant had paid advance on agreement for sale in 2012 through bank wherethe guidance value was less than the purchase value

Leena Ashok Zope, Akola vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Akola

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

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

purchased immovable property in the F.Y. 2017–18 and the purchase consideration is being below the fair market value hence the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(B) of the Act are applicable. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice under

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officergrossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 10,90,73,795/- under section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate and Purchase amount of the property purchased by the assessee appellant during the year under consideration ... reproducing here for the sake of brevity.’’ 7. Ground No. 3 of appeal relates to addition of Rs. 10,90,73,795/- under section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officergrossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 10,90,73,795/- under section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate and Purchase amount of the property purchased by the assessee appellant during the year under consideration ... reproducing here for the sake of brevity.’’ 7. Ground No. 3 of appeal relates to addition of Rs. 10,90,73,795/- under section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B

Poonam Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1544/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Poonam Lakhmani…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 561 Block N New Alipore, Kol- 700053.. [Pan: Abqpl4291H] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

assessment by making an addition Poonam Lakhmani of Rs.30,64,000/- (Rs.1,05,64,000/- - 75,00,000/-) as per provisions of section 56(2)(x) and addition of Rs.75,00,000/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP

Vedprakash Pannalal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 4389/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Vedprakash Pannalal Gupta Ito-41(1)(5) Room No. 19, Lohia Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Sion Laxmi Baug, Sion Vs. Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 022. Complex, Mumbai-51. Pan : Bbdpg7181H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha KaushikFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Thakurdesai
Section 234BSection 56(2)(x)

whether Ld. CIT(A) is correct in law in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO with respect to the addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Another ground of appeal raised by the appellant in this case, is that the share of appellant ... 1/3rd share. 2. From the assessment order, it is observed that the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 69,89,659/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act which deals with difference between the value mentioned in sale document and the cost determined by State Government for stamp

Mahesh Katragadda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 659/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

conviction that as the A.O. while framing the assessment had lost sight of the aforesaid material fact in the backdrop of applicability of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, thus, the same had rendered the assessment framed by him as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial ... same was Rs. 1,18,00,000/-, resulting in a difference of ₹18,00,000/-. Accordingly, the A.O. invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, and treated the difference 4 Mahesh Katragadda of Rs. 18 lacs as the assessee’s income from other sources and added

Vijay Rajaram Mane, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Baban Chindhu Harane, Tal - Sahapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan

ITA 4834/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Baban Chindhu Harane Ito Ward 2(2), Kalyan At- Changyacha Pada, Kalyan Kharade Bhiwandi Vs. Maharashtra - 421301 Tal-Sahapur Maharashtra - 420601 Pan: Aczph1742D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (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. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, As Per The Information Available With The Department In Insight Portal The Assessee Had Purchased A Property On A Consideration Of Rs.4,00,000/- As Against The Stamp Duty Valuation At Rs.10,64,000/- & Therefore The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons For Reopening & Issuing Notice Dated 11.02.2023 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Making The Addition Of Rs.6,64,000/- Being Difference Between The Stamp

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018

Shree Sai Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 4616/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

assessee purchased land at Shirgaon, Thane, for ₹62,50,000/- whereas the stamp duty valuation was ₹4,76,84,000/-. He invoked section 56(2)(x) and made an addition of ₹45,00,000/-. Further, upon examining the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), he held that though the assessee disclosed only ... novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the terms of the JDA, the consideration actually received, and the applicability of section 56(2)(x) and section 45(5A), in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal is treated

Chandrakant Jethmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra (East)

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4611/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychandrakant Jethmal Jain, Ito, Ward-41(1), Flat No.E-2004, Anmol Excel Mumbai Estate, S.V. Road, Opp. Patel Vs. Petrol Pump, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Aacpj 0335 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Patni, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

purchase consideration amount shown by the Assessee to the tune of Rs.5,78,550/- as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and in respect of property situated numbered as C-406, situated at Royal Samrat, S.V. Road, Goregaon, Mumbai-400062 3. The Assessee, though being ... both the authorities below, made and affirmed the addition, without considering the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 14/11/2011 and first proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which prescribes as under: “Where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property

Femina Concept Marketing & Retail Trading (Textiles) Co Private Limited, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GantraFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

26AS, the actual purchase consideration was only Rs.50,00,000/- paid through banking channels and also ignoring the non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x) enacted w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19 to impugned Assessment Year. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case

Dharmesh Girish Dixit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-41(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4658/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)Section 68Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Milan Amrutlal Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 682/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.682/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Milan Amruitlal Shah Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), बनाम/ Plot No.4119, Road No.41, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Gidc, Road Rs, Surat- 394 Gate, Surat-395 001 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn 6144 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

that date was Rs.1,61,24,702/-. The assessee made payment of Rs.10,30,900/- on 08.02.2018. The assessee referred to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act and submitted that the assessee had made payment from his HUF account and the same was reflected as unsecured loan in balance ... developer on 10.10.2012, which was subsequently was repaid to HUF on 08.02.2018 by cheque of Rs.10,30,900/-. Therefore, provisions of Section 56(2)(x) are not applicable. He submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the details submitted by the appellant and passed non- spealing order dismissing

Lakhdhir Virji Gala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4301/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Adake a/w Shri KartikFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jamale, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(x)

stamp duty value and the agreement value cannot be added when the tolerance bandwidth is 5% as per the amendment brought about to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act which according to the ld. AR applies retrospectively as being curative in nature. The ld. AR further stated that Section