The assessee, an individual, purchased a property for \u20b960,00,000\/-. The District Valuation Officer (DVO) valued the property at \u20b964,84,000\/-, resulting in a difference of \u20b94,84,000\/-. 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\u2019s valuation. \u00a0On appeal. The Tribunal held \u00a0that 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 \u00a0(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 \u20b94,84,000 deleted. Appeal allowed in favour of assessee. Referred, \u00a0\u00a0NFAC Delhi v. NRB Developers [2025] 211 ITD 728 (Mum) (Trib.), \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Saggar Parimmal v. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 805 (Mum)(Trib.) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Shri Ashutosh Sinha v. ITO, ITA No. 643\/Mum\/2023, dated 29-8- \u00a02023, (Mum) (Trib.) \u00a0( ITA No. 4425\/Mum\/2025 dt. 25 -8 -2025) ( AY 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 56 : Income from other sources – Immovable property \u2013 Purchase consideration – DVO valuation \u2013 Difference of 7% within 10% safe harbour \u2013 Amendment by Finance Act, 2020 curative and retrospective \u2013 Addition deleted.[ S. 50C , 56(2)(x)(b)(B) ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56475","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-eGT","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56475","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56475"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56475\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56476,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56475\/revisions\/56476"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}