TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 171 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of difference between the consideration declared by the assessee and the stamp duty valuation could survive when the difference between the consideration and the DVO-determined value was within the 10% safe harbour limit.
Issue (i): Whether the delay of 171 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation.
Analysis: The explanation for delay was supported by a sworn affidavit and was found to be bona fide, reasonable, unintentional, and plausible.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of difference between the consideration declared by the assessee and the stamp duty valuation could survive when the difference between the consideration and the DVO-determined value was within the 10% safe harbour limit.
Analysis: The DVO determined the fair market value at Rs. 6,11,69,000 against the declared consideration of Rs. 5,60,00,000, leaving a difference of 9.23%, which fell within the permissible 10% variation. The Tribunal applied the view that the enhanced safe harbour limit from 5% to 10%, introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, operates retrospectively.
Conclusion: The addition was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on merits after condonation of delay, and the impugned addition was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the difference between the declared consideration and the determined value remains within the 10% safe harbour margin, the deeming addition cannot be sustained, and the enhanced tolerance limit is to be applied retrospectively.
TaxTMI 
