https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760330 ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 56(2)(viia) based on higher stamp duty value than consideration was invalid. When assessee objected to valuation and requested fresh DVO reference, AO failed to obtain proper valuation report as DVO merely reiterated seller's valuation without considering buyer's objections. Court ruled valuation must be assessee-specific, not property-specific, and AO's failure to obtain fresh DVO report after giving assessee opportunity to represent violates procedural requirements. Addition deleted favoring assessee. Regarding reopening validity, while some grounds failed due to SC precedent in Rajeev Bansal, notice issued by JAO instead of FAO rendered reopening invalid per Bombay HC decisions. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:24:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760330 ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 56(2)(viia) based on higher stamp duty value than consideration was invalid. When assessee objected to valuation and requested fresh DVO reference, AO failed to obtain proper valuation report as DVO merely reiterated seller's valuation without considering buyer's objections. Court ruled valuation must be assessee-specific, not property-specific, and AO's failure to obtain fresh DVO report after giving assessee opportunity to represent violates procedural requirements. Addition deleted favoring assessee. Regarding reopening validity, while some grounds failed due to SC precedent in Rajeev Bansal, notice issued by JAO instead of FAO rendered reopening invalid per Bombay HC decisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760330