https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78557 The ITAT considered an appeal regarding an addition u/s 56(2)(x) where the property in question was agricultural land. The difference between the consideration paid and stamp duty value was disputed. The assessee argued that agricultural land is not a capital asset u/s 2(14), so u/s 56(2)(x) deeming provision doesn't apply. The ITAT found that the assessee purchased 23 bighas of agricultural land supported by a letter from the Tehsildar. Despite the letter being handwritten, it was deemed valid. Since the land was agricultural, outside the definition of a capital asset, the addition was deleted, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:45:20 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:45:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78557 The ITAT considered an appeal regarding an addition u/s 56(2)(x) where the property in question was agricultural land. The difference between the consideration paid and stamp duty value was disputed. The assessee argued that agricultural land is not a capital asset u/s 2(14), so u/s 56(2)(x) deeming provision doesn't apply. The ITAT found that the assessee purchased 23 bighas of agricultural land supported by a letter from the Tehsildar. Despite the letter being handwritten, it was deemed valid. Since the land was agricultural, outside the definition of a capital asset, the addition was deleted, and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:45:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78557