← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(vii)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)(b)543 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal (338 ITR 485), cited in 69 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal
338 ITR 485 · 2011 · High Court
69
citing judgments

The revenue must prove that an assessee received extra consideration beyond the declared value; a Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report alone is insufficient to establish such receipt.

Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
150 ITR 643 · 1984 · High Court
23
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.

Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
117 Taxmann.com 442 · 2020 · High Court
20
citing judgments

A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is barred by limitation if the original assessment was completed under section 143(3).

Joseph Mudaliar v. DCIT
130 Taxmann.com 250 · 2021 · Reported
18
citing judgments

The amendment to section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by inserting the third proviso through the Finance Act, 2018, is curative and applies retrospectively. This means the tolerance band for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value, introduced by this amendment, is applicable to earlier assessment years.

CIT v. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.
221 Taxmann 25 · 2014 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Assessments initiated without proper jurisdiction, such as under section 153C without the necessary foundation, are null and void and must be annulled.

Mubarak Gafur Korabu v. ITO
117 Taxmann.com 828 · 2020 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with income from acquisition of property for inadequate consideration, does not apply to agricultural land purchased by an assessee, as it is not considered a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act.

Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward
185 ITD 433 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

For the purpose of determining income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) or 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value or fair market value of immovable property is to be considered as on the date of payment made by the assessee towards booking of the property, where an agreement for purchase and payment of consideration has been made prior to the date of registration.

CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises
299 ITR 348 · 2008 · High Court
13
citing judgments

A family arrangement or settlement does not give rise to any income. This is because it represents the working out of existing rights among family members rather than a transfer of property.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

Praveen Sanjiv, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3834/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3834/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Praveen Sanjiv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 45, W Block, 7Th Street, Anna Non Corporate Ward 7(3), Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Fzzps0216R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of variation in respect of issue under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and alternatively under section 69 of the Act. 4. Brief facts relating ... sources by the assessee issuing show cause notice as is evident from page 4 & 5 of the assessment order, applied provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, added the variation in respect of sale consideration to the total income of the assessee vide pafra

Mahmood Hussain Syed, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 541/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

considering the fair mark et value of business asset forming part of stock in trade by applying the deeming provisions of section 56(2) (vii) (b) and also ignoring the circumstances involved at the time of purchase where seller had malafide intentions. 5. For these and other ground which ... provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 2,03,87,170/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards the difference between purchase consideration and the stamp duty value of the property as on the date of registration

Sujata Prakash Jawale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7572/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.44,75,913/- without appreciating the fact the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is prospective from 01.04.2014, whereas the impugned transaction pertains to F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12., the provision could not have been invoked for the year under ... Ld.AO accordingly, issued show-cause notice calling upon assessee to submit its response as to why the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) should not be applied to the facts of the case. Assessee vide its submissions dated 26/09/2016 submitted that the original agreement of purchase was entered

Hitesh Sharma, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Palampur, Palampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1487/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

notice within limitation, addition of Rs.93,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 und addition of Rs.90,33,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on alleged difference in stamp duty value each of which deserved independent consideration on merits and as such the order passed is arbitrary ... also did not examine the additions of Rs. 93,00,000 under section 69 and Rs. 90,33,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). It was thus argued that the impugned order being non-speaking and passed in violation of principles of natural justice deserves

Abbas Fakhruddin, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal Kaku, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

stamp duty valuation authority, has been determined according to the SRO at Rs.67,56,275/- and thus the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, attracts in the case”, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice

Sidh Farms, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 55(5), Delhi

In the result, the addition made by the Ld

ITA 6672/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6672/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम M/S Sidh Farms Income Tax Officer, 32, Dsidc Jhilmil Industrial Area, Vs. Ward 55(5), Room No.401, Delhi – 110095. D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Pan No.Acofs1102P I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging this action. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act pertains to only an individual “or a Hindu undivided family”, whereas this case pertains to a partnership firm. It was argued that ... carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record before us. We find from a perusal of the language of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act that it is specifically applicable to individuals and HUFs. It is thus clear that since the assessee

Noorul Hasan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7206/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarnoorul Hasan Shaikh Vs. Ito- Ward 25(3)(1) 4, Laxmi Bhavan, P.D’Mello Room 118, 1St Floor, Road. Kautilya Bhavan, Carnac Bunder, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400001 Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Apaps5077A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya – Advocate Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

considerations; (iii) Ignored relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant; (iv) Erroneously come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were attracted; and (v) Ignoring that the case was covered by the First Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) as the payment

Vikas Bedprakash Pandey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Bedprakash Pandey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1102 Riddhi Tower, Riddhi Garden 41(4)(4),Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- Film City Road, Malad E Mumbai- 400051. 400097. Pan/Gir No: Anwpp9823B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pankaj Kumar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA

Ravi Vijayalakshmi, Athipattu vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

ITA 2887/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is sustainable where the addition is made solely by invoking the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 12. Insofar as the delay before the ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the explanation offered by the assessee is that

Neelesh Shyamsunder Sable, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 51(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. (Virtually
Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(x)

core controversy involves an addition of ontroversy involves an addition of made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The AO observed that ... addition of Rs.5,36,81,000/- made by the AO under made by the AO under Neelesh Shyamsunder Sable Neelesh Shyamsunder Sable section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act on account of the difference between of the Act on account

Ramani Mathuraprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

ITA 7543/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Naimish JoshiFor Respondent: Date
Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessment Year 20172-108 at INR.1,23,91,862/- after making the following additions/disallowances: (a) INR.39,20,555/- disallowed under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) (b) INR.11,00,600/- disallowed on account of commission and brokerage expenses 2 Assessment Year 2017-2018 (c) INR.53,90,000/- disallowed on account ... amount of INR.39,20,555/- was added on account of the difference between the market value and stamp duty value under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act (b) An amount of INR.1,40,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained Investment for the purchase of the said

Cherie Tandon Saldahna, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Mumbai

ITA 6576/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

over thinking and hyper technical interpretation at the end of the A.O. assessee's case clearly falls in the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). For sake of clarity we are reproducing herein below the relevant portion of proviso Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing ... sale deed were different but assessee, prior to date of agreement, had paid a part of consideration by cheque, provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) being fulfilled, stamp value as on date of agreement should be applied for purpose of said section (d) Ashutosh Jhavs. ITO Ward

Ratibhai Girdharbhai Kakani, Surat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer observed that the stamp duty valuation of the property was Rs.4,65,57,750/- and, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, made an addition of Rs.1,16,21,427/- being the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual purchase consideration ... Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A). 5.1 The issue for consideration is whether the addition of Rs.1,16,21,427/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is sustainable. Straight to the issue: 5.2 The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,16,21,427/- under section 56

Karadi Path Education Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner, Chennai

ITA 1848/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1848/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karadi Path Education Company Private Limited, 3A No.11, Dev Regency, I Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. [Pan: Aaeck-2995-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Corporate Circle -4(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Pradhan Priya Dass, C.A. (By Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Dated 29.04.2025 In Respect Of The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (In Short 'Ao') Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act') Dated 28.04.2021. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Pradhan Priya Dass, C.A. (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

decision of Sudhir Menon HUF vs. Asst. CIT(A) (ITA No. 192/Mum/2013) which :-3-: ITA. No:1848/Chny/2025 was in the context of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) / 56(2)(vii)(c) and not in the context of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act. For these

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

clear whether the valuer has considered the same at all. The appellant has argued that the first proviso to section 56(2) (vii)(b) expressly exempts the amounts received by a Venture Capital Undertaking (VCU) from an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF), towards issue of shares, from the applicability ... ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT v. Drishti Sofi Solutions Put. Ltd. (ITA No. 8523/Del/2019) wherein it was held that section 56(2)(vii) (b) would not be applicable where consideration for issued of shares is received by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

clear whether the valuer has considered the same at all. The appellant has argued that the first proviso to section 56(2) (vii)(b) expressly exempts the amounts received by a Venture Capital Undertaking (VCU) from an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF), towards issue of shares, from the applicability ... ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT v. Drishti Sofi Solutions Put. Ltd. (ITA No. 8523/Del/2019) wherein it was held that section 56(2)(vii) (b) would not be applicable where consideration for issued of shares is received by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

clear whether the valuer has considered the same at all. The appellant has argued that the first proviso to section 56(2) (vii)(b) expressly exempts the amounts received by a Venture Capital Undertaking (VCU) from an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF), towards issue of shares, from the applicability ... ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT v. Drishti Sofi Solutions Put. Ltd. (ITA No. 8523/Del/2019) wherein it was held that section 56(2)(vii) (b) would not be applicable where consideration for issued of shares is received by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company

Jaidev Vinod Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he held appeal of the assessee as liable to be dismissed

ITA 6626/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 43CSection 50CSection 53A

determining 'Profits and gains of business or profession', as held by hon’ble Bombay HC in CIT v Neelkamal Realtors. Ground 5 Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies to receiving an immovable property Without prejudice, the ld. AO failed to realise that there is no purchase of any immovable property ... hence section 56(2)(vii)(b) lacks applicability. The order making addition under this section, on sale of property is bad in law. Ground 6 CIT (A) fails to set-aside the order Without prejudice, the reinstating of the power of the first appellate authority to set-aside an order

Kuldip Singh, Ranchi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Pursuant thereto, assessment was framed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B, making an addition of ₹77,72,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The addition was made on the allegation that the assessee purchased land measuring 0.67 acre for a consideration

Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7535/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Income Tax Officer, 25-26, 6Th Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), Western Court Building, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 83, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400012. Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002. Pan : Acips3131J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 5O

being the difference between the purchase consideration 2 and the stamp duty valuation, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has allowed partial relief to the assessee, wherein addition ... brought to tax the whole of the differential amount invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has already restricted the addition to the extent of the assessee‟s share amounting