https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783437 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the conditions for invoking s.50C or s.56(vii)(b)(ii) were not satisfied, as a valid agreement fixing consideration for the immovable property existed as on 28.06.2007 and part of the consideration had been paid through account payee cheques in 2007. The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s reasoning that substantial consideration and possession were not transferred on the agreement date, finding it contrary to the statutory scheme. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on the basis of the higher SRO value was deleted, and the revisionary action under s.263 failed. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 08:19:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783437 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the conditions for invoking s.50C or s.56(vii)(b)(ii) were not satisfied, as a valid agreement fixing consideration for the immovable property existed as on 28.06.2007 and part of the consideration had been paid through account payee cheques in 2007. The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s reasoning that substantial consideration and possession were not transferred on the agreement date, finding it contrary to the statutory scheme. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on the basis of the higher SRO value was deleted, and the revisionary action under s.263 failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783437