<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 1656 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775588</link>
    <description>A transfer of property between the assessee and a relative was treated as outside the scope of section 56(2)(x) because the provision targets specified transactions that do not fall within recognised exclusions. Relying on the admitted factual position and a coordinate bench decision on an identical issue, the Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained. The addition under section 56(2)(x) was deleted, and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2025 08:27:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1656 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775588</link>
      <description>A transfer of property between the assessee and a relative was treated as outside the scope of section 56(2)(x) because the provision targets specified transactions that do not fall within recognised exclusions. Relying on the admitted factual position and a coordinate bench decision on an identical issue, the Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained. The addition under section 56(2)(x) was deleted, and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>