https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774355 The ITAT Mumbai remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh valuation after finding merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the DVO's valuation report. The assessee purchased leasehold land for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- but faced addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) based on higher stamp duty valuation. The tribunal accepted additional evidence showing the DVO's comparable sale instances were inappropriate - involving different land sizes, TDR sales instead of land, freehold versus leasehold properties, and different encumbrance types. The tribunal directed the AO to obtain revised DVO valuation considering the additional evidence, while leaving other legal grounds regarding applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to leasehold land unadjudicated. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jul 2025 08:36:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774355 The ITAT Mumbai remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh valuation after finding merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the DVO's valuation report. The assessee purchased leasehold land for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- but faced addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) based on higher stamp duty valuation. The tribunal accepted additional evidence showing the DVO's comparable sale instances were inappropriate - involving different land sizes, TDR sales instead of land, freehold versus leasehold properties, and different encumbrance types. The tribunal directed the AO to obtain revised DVO valuation considering the additional evidence, while leaving other legal grounds regarding applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to leasehold land unadjudicated. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774355