“Section 56(2)”

Prasad Jaykar Shetty, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Prasad Jaykar Shetty Ito, Ward-3(2) A-43, Building No. 2 Ashar I.T. Park Vishram Tower Vs. 6Th Floor, Room No. Wagle Estate 04, Ambika Nagar, Thane West-400 604. Wagle Estate Thane-400 604. Pan : Aozps2736L Appellant Respondent

and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal 2. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 31,70,500/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act by stating as follows while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act :- 2 Prasad ... Jaykar Shetty “Therefore by virtue of provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T.Act,1961, the amount of Rs. 31,70,500/- is liable to be treated as income of the assessee. The provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T.Act,1961 says that

Pinstripe Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year 2018-19

made part of the payment by banking mode through RTGS on 08.02.2011 of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Therefore, as per First Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act date of agreement will be taken to 18.03.2011 and not 26.04.2016. The ld. Counsel has also referred the copies ... assessing officer has added difference of Rs. 93,46,548/- in the total income of the assessee after applying the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee has submitted the copies of allotment letter of flat no. 1601 & 1701 dated 18.03.2011 wherein it is categorically stated

Bharat Mithalal Jain, Bhayandar vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

same was Rs.22,06,000/- and therefore the AO construed that the Assessee has not offered the difference of consideration as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and consequently issued the notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act to the Assessee who in response filed ... Rs.13,96,400/- being difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value, for the taxation as per the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, by filing his return of income on dated 10.08.2021 in response to the notice

Fiero Fernandes, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.23/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Fiero Fernandes Vs. Ito, Ward-42(2)(2), 1202 Lourdes Heritage, Mumbai Opposite Our Lady Of Lourdes Church, Orlem Malad West Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaspf 3097 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 05/11/2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

purchase consideration is less than 10% of the purchase consideration and as upheld by various judicial for a, the amendment to section 56(2)(x) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2019 prescribing a price band of 10% being curative and beneficial in nature, would apply retrospectively to section 56(2

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6 1 1, Mumbai vs. Dlk Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

between existing shareholders and hence, there was no fresh infusion of funds in the company and in that case, the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act will not apply.The revenue is aggrieved. 4. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has furnished another valuation report dated 8th April

Shamoon Ahmed Mulla, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

levied u/s.271(1)(c) 2 Shamoon Ahmed Mulla., AY 2015-16 of the Act on the addition made under deemed provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act. 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) of National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred ... initiated on the deemed income computed by adopting the stamp value of the property as on the date of agreement during which section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not in existence 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) of National Faceless Appeal Centre

Jayantilal Umashankar Chavji, Mumbai vs. National E Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

property was done at the lower cost. He accordingly made addition of the differential amount in the hands of the assessee under section 56 (2) (x) of the Act. I.T.A. No.4433/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT ... Ground No. 1, claim has been made that the excess of stamp duty valuation over sale consideration was only 1.5% whereas provisions of section 56(2)(x) allowed 5% of sale consideration to be ignored. However, the contention is not correct because for the AY under consideration (2018-19), only