Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of difference between the stamp duty value and the stated purchase consideration of an immovable property was sustainable where the assessee claimed that the relevant acquisition date was the allotment and advance payment made in 2012, while the registered agreement for sale was executed in 2014.
Analysis: The assessee claimed that the allotment letter and advance payment in 2012 conferred enforceable rights in the flat and that the transaction therefore fell outside the scope of the provision for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal found that the allotment letter only recorded booking and earnest money, whereas the agreement for sale executed on 10.09.2014 was the operative document for purchase. It held that the 2012 payment was merely earnest money and that the immovable property was received under the registered agreement in 2014. On that basis, the Tribunal applied section 56(2)(vii)(b), which taxs receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration where the difference exceeds the prescribed threshold, and rejected the argument based on an earlier allotment date. The authorities relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on their facts.
Conclusion: The addition was rightly sustained and the assessee's challenge failed.