Anil Chotelal Agarwal vs. ITO, Ward 6(2)(1) Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The appellant, Anil Chotelal Agarwal, had purchased a flat from M/s. Shivranjani Properties LLP on 1.3.2015. Agarwal requested the Assessing Officer to consider the date of allotment as the date of purchase. The registration of the property took place on 5.8.2020. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment due to the limitation period and concluded that Agarwal was required to disclose Rs. 44,62,000/- as Income under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Agarwal appealed against this addition, stating that the flat was originally purchased in 2012. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, and Agarwal further appealed to the ITAT. The ITAT remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the DVO’s report and registered valuer’s report and complete the value under section 56(2)(x) of the Act.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Which date is to be reckoned for the purposes of invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Mustanshir Abbas Hussain vs ITO, Ward – 24(2)(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Aero Pack Products Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

• Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhule

  Pune bench

• Sarayu Krishna Kamat vs DCIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench 'G', Mumbai benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Rizwana Mohamed Bhopalwala Individual and Mohamed Enayat Bhopalwala Individual vs. ITO, Int. Taxation Ward 1 (2) (1)

  Mumbai bench

• Kanha Villa LLP vs. Income Tax Ward 29(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed