https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767209 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision under section 263. The case involved addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) regarding difference between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration of land. ITAT held that the partnership firm M/s Goyal Sons was the actual purchaser of the orchard land, not the individual partners. Since section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies only to individuals/HUFs receiving capital assets, and the partnership firm made the purchase, no addition could be made in partners' hands. ITAT noted section 56(2)(x) covering partnership firms was introduced from 2017-18, not applicable to assessment year 2016-17. The assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue's interest, failing to meet section 263 revision conditions. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:06:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767209 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision under section 263. The case involved addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) regarding difference between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration of land. ITAT held that the partnership firm M/s Goyal Sons was the actual purchaser of the orchard land, not the individual partners. Since section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies only to individuals/HUFs receiving capital assets, and the partnership firm made the purchase, no addition could be made in partners' hands. ITAT noted section 56(2)(x) covering partnership firms was introduced from 2017-18, not applicable to assessment year 2016-17. The assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue's interest, failing to meet section 263 revision conditions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767209