Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act

BISWADIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLIE - 1(1), I.T.,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 10/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

SOPHIA MUSHTAQ PANIRWALA,G T ROAD MUMBAI vs. ACIT, ASSESSMENT UNIT ,NFAC

ITA 7242/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 7-D Billimoria Hosg, Income Tax, Proctor Road, Grant Road, Assessment Unit, Nfac, Mumbai - 400007 New Delhi - 110002 (Pan: Aigpp2287C) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1080505962(1) Dated 10.09.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.08.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. “Whether The Id Cit-A,Nfac Was Justified By Passing The Order Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & Personal Hearing Despite The Admitted Facts That There Are So Many Glitches On Portal Resulting Details/Submissions Couldn'T Be Uploaded. 2. Whether The Ld Cit-A(Nfac) Was Justified By Upholding The Assessment Order On The Issue Of Invoking Section 56(2) On The Difference Of Rs.2,28,41,000/-Due To Stamp Valuation & Declared Consideration Without Considering The Nature

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 69

HITESH SHARMA,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-PALAMPUR , PALAMPUR

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

ITA 1487/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

SIDH FARMS,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 55(5), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the addition made by the Ld

ITA 6672/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6672/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम M/S Sidh Farms Income Tax Officer, 32, Dsidc Jhilmil Industrial Area, Vs. Ward 55(5), Room No.401, Delhi – 110095. D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Pan No.Acofs1102P I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

NEELESH SHYAMSUNDER SABLE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 51(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. (Virtually

Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(x)

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

TAPADIA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,AURANGABAD vs. PR. CIT, (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 650/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

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

ITA 484/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

SHILPABEN HITESHBHAI SAKARIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Ito-1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Near Income Tax Office, Anavil Navyug Collage, Rander Road, Vs. Business Business Centre, Surat-395005. Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aqqps 4288 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, CA

Section 234ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

MAYA DEVI,MANOHARPUR, CHAIBASA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 298/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

MAYA DEVI,MANOHARPUR, CHAIBASA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 297/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

MAYA DEVI,MANOHARPUR, CHAIBASA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 296/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

STERNAL BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 24(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 99/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 196Section 40

SUMAN JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SAGAR

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

ITA 99/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

SAVALIGAYYA BASAYYA GADDAGIMATH,DHARWAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

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

ITA 1011/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

SUSHMA HARESH UBALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

KALPTARU INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-3 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 56(2)(x)