“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)

Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri, Patan vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1194/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblejavidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop. Aamil Surgical Hospital, Ward -1, Subhadranagar, Near C.T. Point, Patan Patan-384265 [Pan : Agnpm 6086 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ganta Manoj Kumar G., Ca Respondent By: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Ganta Manoj Kumar G., CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

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

payments made through the bank account. These documents/evidences are well before the Ld. CIT(A). 3.4 In this background, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are examined. The same reads as under:- Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri Vs ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– (x) where ... been paid by way of account payee cheques through a bank account, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are not attracted in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted

Mahesh Rochiram (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3524/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property is not the same as the date of registration, as per provision to section 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value on the date of agreement be taken for the purpose of this sub-clause, if the assessee

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shailendra Rameshchandra Rathi, Pune

ITA 2924/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi and Ms Aadnya Bhandari, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

kind held by an assesser, whether or not connected with his business or profession; is a capital asset and accordingly deeming provision of section 56(2)(x) will apply on the assessee? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITYA ... tabulated above. Addition has been made on account of difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty value by applying provisions of section 56(2)(x). In the course of first appeal, AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 assessee submitted that land purchased by the assessee are agriculture land

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Shailendra Rameshchandra Rathi, Pune

ITA 2923/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi and Ms Aadnya Bhandari, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

Raghuraj Singh, Sambhal vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Sambhal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5159/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 56Section 69A

1 5159/Del/2025 Raghuraj Singh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2046/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

ground no.2 is concerned, it is a settled position of law that the tolerance limit was increased from 5% to 10% in section 56(2)(x) by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which is held to be applicable retrospectively, it being curative in nature and therefore would apply retrospectively from

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1969/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

Debasis Das, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 869/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmadebasis Das, Vs Ito, Ward-24 (1), Hooghly Motherland Nursing Home, Dankuni, Hooghly-712224 Pan No. :Akfpd 3436 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.P.Datta, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-2021, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Addition A Sum Of Rs. 44,95,500/- Is Bad. Illegal & Arbitrary In Nature. 2. That Without Considering The Actual Purchase Consideration Of The Landed Property, The Enhance Valuation Determined By Stamp Duty Valuer Is Mere A Guess Work & Such Enhanced Valuation Is Without Any Basis. Hence Such Enhancement Shall Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Considered The Alternative Remedy Which Are Available In Income Tax Act & Refer This Matter To The Dvo For Fresh Valuation. 4. That On The Basis Of Mere Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Actual Sale Consideration Shall Not Be The Sole Determination For Such Unlawful & Illegal Addition. Hence The Benefit Of Law Which Are Available & Prescribed In The Act Shall Be Taken Into Consideration At The Time Of Such Determination Of Such Income Tax Liability.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

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

with assessee’s wife Smt. Nineesha Das. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the provision of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act cannot be invoked and difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value cannot be assessed as income from other sources ... apply the fair market value as determined by the DVO, after considering relevant sale consideration as per the registered deed in terms of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated in the open court

Kbn Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1455/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarkbn Infrastructure Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 3(2)(3), Room No. 673A, 6Th B-426, Nbc Complex, Plot No. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 43, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai – 400020, Navi Mumbai - 400 614, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck3271B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 271DSection 68Section 69Section 69A

more than the fair market value claiming that P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2018-19 KBN Infrastructure Private Limited provisions of section 56(2)(x) and section 56(2)(viib) were not attracted. 6. However, the ld.CIT(A) still found shortcomings in the reply inter alia holding that from

Narayanbhai Shivabhai Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(6)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

consideration which was lower than the stamp duty value of the properties. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act and the difference of Rs.30,50,000/- between the stamp duty value and the purchase price was considered as income ... u/s.270A of the I.T. Act 1961 levied by Ld. AO as no penalty can be levied on the basis of deeming provision of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant

Mr. Suresh Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

introduction of the relevant provisions in the statute, declined to entertain the claim of the Assessee mainly on the reason that provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act have been introduced after 01.04.2017 and thereafter leverage was granted vide Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and therefore the leverage ... thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to five per cent of the consideration: …………………” 13. Thus, as can be seen, after introduction of section 56(2)(x), applicable for transactions undertaken after 01-04-2017, by Finance Act, 2018, identical exception as provided in third proviso to section

M/S. Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1054/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 4(3) Salarpuriajajodia @ Co.7, Ayakar Bhawan Poorva, Chittaranjan Avenue, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccr9920R Assessee By : Shri S Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM M/s

Silverton Pulp and Papers Private Limited, Muzaffarnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Dehradun

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

ITA 212/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 56(2)(x)

treating the same as residential and thus made the addition of the differential value of Rs.30,14,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Besides this adhoc disallowance of Rs. 5.00 lacs was also made out of various expenses. 3. Aggrieved ... charged at the higher rate by treating the same as residential which is not correct. It was further claimed that the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) are not applicable to the agricultural land purchased by the assessee. The higher stamp duty was charged where the land area

Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4647/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A). The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that without awaiting for adjudication of the said appeal, the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order confirming the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal challenging the levy of penalty only after taking into consideration the result of the quantum appeal. It was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee that in view of the aforesaid facts, impugned order be set aside.

For Appellant: Shri Virabhadra MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Shahab Akram Khan

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

differences of INR.30,74,495/- between the purchase value and stamp value by treating the same as deemed income of the Assessee under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. It is admitted position that the aforesaid addition was challenged in appeal by the Assessee and the said appeal preferred

Rameshchandra Chhabildas Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3520/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

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

considered as full value of consideration and the assessee’s eligible for benefit of first and second proviso to section 56(2)(x). The CBDT also issued circular no. 3/2017 wherein in para 29.2 in said circular it has been clarified that if the date of agreement fixing the amount ... assessee and the value of asset determined by stamp valuation authority. The ld. AR while carrying us through first and second proviso to section 56(2)(x) and would submit that the lower authorities clearly disregarded such provisions. The ld. AR further submits that in case of other co-owner

Mr. Vijaykumar Pramanad Sethi, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 464/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

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

which was less than the purchase price and therefore the differential amount of Rs.21,59,500/- was covered by the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld. AO therefore issued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing the addition of 21,59,500/- as income

Anup Majee, Purulia vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

findings and observations made in the order dated March 30, 2022 are perverse 9. For that the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary, erroneous, invalid and contrary to law and the findings and observations made

Anup Majee, Purulia vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 648/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Anup Majee, Bhamuria vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), West Bengal

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Nilesh Rameshchandra Sarvaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3164/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR