TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act for the AY 2018-19 determining the total income at INR 1,40,34,000/- as against the returned income of INR 1,12,82,000/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act of INR 27,52,000/- being 1/3 share of alleged difference in the Stamp Duty Value and Actual Consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) falled to appreciate that the alleged difference between the stamp duty value of INR 3,36,56,000/- on 31-07-2017 (date of registration of the property Shop Number 3 at M L Space, Vile Parle West, Mumbai 400 056) cannot be compared with actual consideration paid by the assessee of Rs. 2,54,00,000/- which was agreed vide letter of allotment dated 25-09-2009 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letter was issued by the builder. In the allotment letter all terms and conditions are mentioned including fixing the consideration value of said property at Rs. 2.54 Cr. Such allotment term is in fact is sort of an agreement between the parties. Copy of allotment letter is filed at page 37 of paper book. The assessee and his co-owner purchased the said property on more than the prevailing value of ready reckoner rate at relevant time. During the assessment, before AO the assessee explained all such fact that allotment letter was issued to the assessee fixing the sale consideration and part there of was made in the year 2009. Therefore, the rate applicable in the year 2009 has to be considered as full value of consideration and the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scrutiny assessment, the assessee cannot be treated indifferently as has been held in a series of decisions ⮚ Rajeshkumar Shantilal Patel v. ITO (127 taxmann.com 342), ⮚ Pankaj Inder Wadhwa v. ITO for A.Y. 2019-20 in ITA No. 1733/Mum/2025, ⮚ CIT v. Kumararani Smt. Meenakshi Achi (292 ITR 624) (Mad), ⮚ Jaswant Rai v. CWT (107 ITR 477) (P&H), ⮚ Ms. Viramati H. Dalal v. ITO [58 taxmann.com 331 (Mum-Trib)], ⮚ Pradeep Bansal v. ACIT [155 taxmann.com 663 (Del-Trib), ⮚ Sangram J. Patel v. DCIT [ITA No. 377/Ahd/2018 (Ahd-Trib)], ⮚ Babubhai Shantilal Solanki v. ITO [ITA No. 1893/Ahd/2019 (Ahd-Trib)], ⮚ Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ● Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO (185 ITD 433), ● Parth Dashrath Gandhi v. ACIT for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No. 1990/Mum/2022 4. The ld AR of the assessee submits that in the series of decision on similar set of fact wherein assessee has paid part consideration in pursuance of agreement/allotment letter, the benefit of first and second proviso to section 50C or 56(2)(x)(b) has been allowed in support of the submission the ld. AR relied upon the following decision. i. Order of Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Poonam Ramesh Sahajwani v. ITO for A.Y. 2014-15 in TA No. 2252/Mum/2019 ii. Order of Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Sri T. Babu Reddy v. ITO for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee purchased said property along with his two sons. The assessee and his co-owner has shown sale consideration of Rs. 2.54 Cr, however, the stamp valuation authority valued the said asset for the purpose of registration for transaction at 3.36Cr. Thus there was a difference of Rs. 82.56 Lakhs. The AO brought 1/3rd of difference viz a viz the sale consideration declared by the assessee and the value determined by stamp valuation authority to tax under section 56(2)(x). We find that before AO the assessee, in response to show cause notice specifically stated that he along with his two sons purchased the said property in the year 2009. The builder/developer issued allotment letter dated 25.09.2009. Before issuing allotment letter the asses....