Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
ITAT upheld additions under section 56(2)(x) based on the difference between the actual purchase price (38,44,884) and property valuation. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the District Valuation Officer's assessment (42,51,700), noting it was significantly below the registration value (60,15,959). The appellant failed to provide valid evidence supporting their claimed purchase price. The burden of proof rested with the appellant to establish the accuracy of the sale deed value, which they failed to discharge. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.