https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461721 ITAT Mumbai held that the assessment order was not barred by limitation despite DRP's initial finding that Form 35A objections were not maintainable, as DRP subsequently considered all objections and issued directions to AO. Regarding Section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition for difference between fair market value and actual consideration, the tribunal rejected purposive construction arguments but accepted that no addition should be made when the difference is less than 10% between FMV and sale consideration, applying the beneficial provision retrospectively. The DVO's valuation was found incorrect as it inconsistently averaged two versus three comparable sales. Since the corrected average valuation was within 10% of actual consideration, the addition was deleted. Appeal partly allowed. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Apr 2025 19:44:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461721 ITAT Mumbai held that the assessment order was not barred by limitation despite DRP's initial finding that Form 35A objections were not maintainable, as DRP subsequently considered all objections and issued directions to AO. Regarding Section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition for difference between fair market value and actual consideration, the tribunal rejected purposive construction arguments but accepted that no addition should be made when the difference is less than 10% between FMV and sale consideration, applying the beneficial provision retrospectively. The DVO's valuation was found incorrect as it inconsistently averaged two versus three comparable sales. Since the corrected average valuation was within 10% of actual consideration, the addition was deleted. Appeal partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461721