https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789579 Section 56(2)(x)(b) did not support an anti-avoidance addition where the difference between the stated purchase consideration and the Departmental Valuation Officer's fair market value was within the enhanced 10% tolerance limit. The Tribunal treated the Finance Act, 2020 increase from 5% to 10% as clarificatory and curative, applying it retrospectively in line with coordinate bench rulings. As the variation remained below the applicable tolerance threshold, the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789579 Section 56(2)(x)(b) did not support an anti-avoidance addition where the difference between the stated purchase consideration and the Departmental Valuation Officer's fair market value was within the enhanced 10% tolerance limit. The Tribunal treated the Finance Act, 2020 increase from 5% to 10% as clarificatory and curative, applying it retrospectively in line with coordinate bench rulings. As the variation remained below the applicable tolerance threshold, the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789579