“section 56(2)(x)”

Pavan Vitthal Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

INR.86,49,444/, 2 Assessment Year 2020-21 being Assessee’s share of deemed income taxable as Income From Other Sources as per Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued by Ld. PCIT under Section 263(1) of the Act as the Ld. PCIT ... verify the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, and examine the taxability or otherwise of the same under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer had acted within the scope of limited scrutiny, it could not be said that

Sachin Vasant Masurkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2060/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sachin Vasant V/S. Dcit Circle 16(3), Masurkar Mumbai बिाम Office No. 104, 201, 1St Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Floor, National 400002 Insurance Building Dn Road, Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Afwpm9401L .. Appellant/अपीलाथी Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya M. Rai- Sr Dr 18.07.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. Natural Justice

ground basis never confronted to the Assessee. Such an action is grossly unjust 2 On a plain reading of the proviso to section 56(2)(x) it is evident that once the Assessee disputes the SDV before the AO, it is mandatory to refer the matter to DVO for valuation ... Admittedly, this was not done. Therefore, the entire addition must be deleted since the same is contrary to the mandate of section 56(2)(x) 3. A similar provision is contained in section 50C of the Income Tax Act and the language of section 50C [so far as reference

Ramesh Dnyandeo Dhuri, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

addition of Rs 4,84,000/- u/s.56(2)(x) (b) (B) by not considering the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2020, to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the tolerance limit for the difference in the fair market value as per 2 ... 643/Mum/2023, dated 29-8- 2023, (Mum) (Trib.) 4.2 On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that the introduction of tolerance limit of 5% in section 56(2)(x) was by way of Finance Act 2018 w.e.f. 1/04/2019. He submitted that for the relevant assessment year, there was no applicability of tolerance

Bushra Suhail Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -22(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blebushra Suhail Shaikh Ito, Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai Flat No. 301, Cadel Queen, A- Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Wing, S.V.S. Marg, Cadel Road, Vs Mumbai – 400012. Mahim West, Mumbai-400016. [Pan: Dsjps1674C] (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ca Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Department Represented By : Date Of Institution : 13.05.2025 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 18.08.2025

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of 24,44,390/- under section 56(2)(x), ignoring the exemption available for transactions under Third Proviso to Section 50C(1) inserted by Finance Act, 2018 allows a 10% safe harbor ... variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration, and the transaction is specifically excluded under the proviso to section 56(2)(x). 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹5,65,756/- under section 68, without properly appreciating the explanation, confirmations, and evidences submitted

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Amit Gulab Pardasani, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Am) Amit Gulab Pardasani Dcit, Circle 23(1) B-302, Diago, Near Rizvi Piramal Chamber College, Sherly Rajan Vs. Lalbaug, Parel Road, Bandra West Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 050. Pan : Agdpp5773G Appellant Respondent

inter related and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO under section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act. Therefore we have decided to adjudicate the same through the present consolidated order. 5. We have heard the counsel ... which comes to Rs. 6,77,500/- and the said amount was added in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2)(x) of the Act whereas as per the submission of Ld. AR, the difference between the actual sale consideration and stamp duty value is less than

Surendra Chimandas Kanjani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41 (4), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

Faceless E-Assessment Scheme, 2020 to examine the 2 Assessment Year 2020-2021 purchase value of the property along with income disclose under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the property purchased by the Assessee had stamp duty value of INR.1 ... Assessing Officer, the difference of INR.37,43,000/- was liable to tax in the hands of Assessee as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. However, the Assessee disputed adoption of the aforesaid stamp duty value and therefore, reference was made to District Valuation Officer

Bhavin Rasiklal Gadoya, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Delhi

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

through banking channels before the sale agreement. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not appreciating a fact that as per section 56(2)(x), the provisions of section are applicable only in the cases where any immovable property is "received in any previous year". In the case ... property is still under construction and possession of the said flat has not been received till date. On that count itself, provisions of section 56(2)(x) were not applicable to the Appellant and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and liable to be deleted

Mr Chetnarayan Sitaram Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

56(2)(x) of the Act; (ii) The Appellant was not in receipt of any immovable property / any property within the meaning of section 56(2)(x) of the Act during previous year; (iii) The provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act was not applicable in the case ... adequate consideration; (v) Without further prejudice, the case of the Appellant was covered by the first proviso to clause (b) of section 56(2)(x) of the Act; (vi) Without further prejudice, the stamp duty value as adopted by the A.O. was not at all fair market value