TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24.12.2024. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : "1. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without granting him reasonable opportunity of being heard and impugned order is liable to be set aside. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO had invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) in a mechanical manner without appreciating the full facts of the case. 3. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not appreciating that the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty value was within the tolerance limit of 10% and the addition was not justified. 4. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO had failed to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,55,556/- which was the difference in the actual amount paid and the stamp duty value. The Ld. AR submitted that the difference is less than 5%. There has been an amendment by the Finance Act, 2017 wherein 10% margin was allowed. The Ld. AR submitted that various ITAT held that the amendment is clarificatory in nature and hence applicable for the earlier years. The Ld. AR relied on the following decisions : i. Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs. Income Tax Officer (IT), (2021) 85 ITR(T) 674 (Mumbai-Trib.); ii. Joseph Mudaliar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) 130 taxmann.com 250 (Mumbai-Trib.); iii. Chandra Lalit Sanghvi Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2026) 183 taxmann.com 486 (Mumbai-Trib.); iv. Sai Bhargav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chandra Lalit Sanghvi (supra) has held as under : Quote, "7. Since the facts before us are identical to one as decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra) wherein the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation was less than 10%, respectfully following the same, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 27,33,204/-made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act." Unquote. 5.2 Similar proposition has been laid down by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Joseph Mudaliar (supra). 6. The Ld. DR has not brought on record any decision contrary to these decisions. Therefore, respectfully, following the proposition of law laid down by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) were right in not allowing the Assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80C of the Act. We find support from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Enterprises & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in 415 ITR 139 (Bom.), wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under : Quote, "9. This issue can be looked from slightly different angle. In absence of the provision contained in Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act has held by various decisions of the High Courts noted above, the CIT could entertain a fresh claim in Revision Application even if the claim was not made previously before the Assessing Officer. Provision contained in ....