TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer ("AO") under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), arising from reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made by Ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between stamp duty value and purchase price as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act even when the difference was mere 6.21%. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in affirming with the Ld. Assessing Officer in not considering the date of allotment as date of agreement for stamp duty valuation. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e consideration", and that the tolerance band introduced by the Finance Act, 2018 (5%) and enhanced by the Finance Act, 2020 (10%) applied only prospectively from A.Y. 2019-20 and A.Y. 2021-22 respectively, and hence had no application to A.Y. 2017-18. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative ("ld. AR") for the assessee, at the outset, confined his arguments to Ground No. 1, and placed strong reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Padmavati Developers v. ITO, ITA No. 2616/Mum/2026, dated 25.02.2026, for A.Y. 2018-19. It was submitted that in the said case, on identical facts, addition under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) on account of difference between stamp duty value of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riation between the stamp duty value of Rs. 60,77,840/- and the consideration of Rs. Rs. 57,00,000/- is Rs. 3,77,840/-, which works out to approximately 6.2% of the stamp duty value (and about 6.6% of the consideration), in either view, well within the 10% tolerance band. It was submitted that if a variation of 7.44% was held to fall within the protected band in Padmavati Developers (supra), the marginally lower variation in the present case must, a fortiori, be entitled to the same relief. Judicial discipline and consistency required this Bench to follow the ratio of the coordinate Bench. 7. The learned Departmental Representative ("ld. DR"), on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below and supported the addition. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ownship (P) Ltd., which raises a presumption against retrospectivity, is confined to provisions that impose a fresh liability and has no application to a beneficial provision that merely relaxes an existing deeming fiction. 11. Respectfully following the aforesaid ratio of the coordinate Bench, and applying it to the facts of the present case, we hold that the variation of approximately 6.2%-6.6% between the stamp duty value and the consideration paid by the appellant falls squarely within the protected 10% band, and consequently no addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is sustainable in law. We find no material distinction between the facts of Padmavati Developers (supra) and the facts of the present case that would warrant a ....