<?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>2026 (2) TMI 1435 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469573</link>
    <description>A curative amendment enlarging the tolerance band for minor differences between declared consideration and stamp duty valuation was treated as retrospective and applied to section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal held that where the difference between purchase price and stamp duty value was within the enhanced 10% tolerance limit, the deeming addition could not be sustained. The same principle was followed to exclude the anti-avoidance addition in respect of immovable property, because the amendment was viewed as removing unintended hardship. On that basis, the addition sustained by the first appellate authority was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 18:22:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1435 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469573</link>
      <description>A curative amendment enlarging the tolerance band for minor differences between declared consideration and stamp duty valuation was treated as retrospective and applied to section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal held that where the difference between purchase price and stamp duty value was within the enhanced 10% tolerance limit, the deeming addition could not be sustained. The same principle was followed to exclude the anti-avoidance addition in respect of immovable property, because the amendment was viewed as removing unintended hardship. On that basis, the addition sustained by the first appellate authority was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>