The assessee, an individual, purchased a property for ₹60,00,000/-. The District Valuation Officer (DVO) valued the property at ₹64,84,000/-, resulting in a difference of ₹4,84,000/-. The Assessing Officer treated the difference as income under section 56(2)(x) of the Act and made an addition. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on the DVO’s valuation.  On appeal. The Tribunal held  that the difference between the purchase consideration and DVO valuation was about 7%, which fell within the 10% tolerance limit introduced by Finance Act, 2020. Relying on judicial precedents, including the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Enterprise Ltd. (2009) 185 Taxman 416/ 319 ITR 306  (SC), the Tribunal held that the amendment was curative and remedial in nature, and hence applicable retrospectively. As the difference was within the permissible limit, no addition could be sustained. Addition of ₹4,84,000 deleted. Appeal allowed in favour of assessee. Referred,   NFAC Delhi v. NRB Developers [2025] 211 ITD 728 (Mum) (Trib.),    Saggar Parimmal v. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 805 (Mum)(Trib.)    Shri Ashutosh Sinha v. ITO, ITA No. 643/Mum/2023, dated 29-8-  2023, (Mum) (Trib.)  ( ITA No. 4425/Mum/2025 dt. 25 -8 -2025) ( AY 2018-19)