https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752854 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee company on multiple grounds. The addition under section 69B was deleted as the AO failed to establish that actual expenditure exceeded recorded amounts, relying only on stamp duty valuation. The section 56(2)(x) addition was held inapplicable since it only applies to individuals and HUFs, not companies, and the provision was introduced from AY 2017-18 onwards. The transaction was deemed part of a family settlement agreement, which does not constitute a transfer under established precedent. The house property income addition was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration of municipal ratable value evidence. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 May 2024 11:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752854 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee company on multiple grounds. The addition under section 69B was deleted as the AO failed to establish that actual expenditure exceeded recorded amounts, relying only on stamp duty valuation. The section 56(2)(x) addition was held inapplicable since it only applies to individuals and HUFs, not companies, and the provision was introduced from AY 2017-18 onwards. The transaction was deemed part of a family settlement agreement, which does not constitute a transfer under established precedent. The house property income addition was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration of municipal ratable value evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752854